THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.18029 of 2001 Dated:-25th November, 2010 Between:- V.Bhaskara Rao …Petitioner AND Visakhapatnam Port Trust and another …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.18029 of 2001 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the declaration that the action of the respondents in not releasing the increments to the petitioner from 1983 to 1992 in the post of Driver Grade-I as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and to direct the respondents to release the same and to pay the scale of pay attached to the post of Driver Grade-I and to consequently re-fix the pay scale of the petitioner and to release the pensionary benefits. 2. The brief acts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner, who is now retired from service, was working as a Driver under the respondents at Visakhapatnam. According to him, he was initially appointed as Casual Labour in Visakhapatnam Port Trust in the year 1967 and subsequently he had obtained driving license in the year 1968 and was appointed as Messenger on 10.04.1970. It is also his case that he had obtained Heavy Motor Vehicle Driving License in the year 1970 and then, he was promoted as Junior Driver on 15.12.1971 and he was further promoted as Driver Grade-I in the year 1983. 3. The respondents initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in the year 1982 alleging that he had produced a false school certificate. Then he produced another school certificate, but the same was not considered by the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.11907 of 1983 before this Court and this Court, by order dated 24.12.1987, directed the respondents to enquire into the matter keeping in view the second certificate produced by the petitioner. Subsequently, enquiry was conducted and it was found that the second certificate produced by the petitioner was genuine. As per the certificate which was found to be genuine, the petitioner was aged about 31 years at the time of his initial appointment. On the ground that the maximum age to get into service was only 25 years at the time of initial appointment, the respondents, by orders dated 31.10.1988, terminated the services of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said termination order by filing Writ Petition No.19060 of 1988 before this Court and this Court initially stayed the termination order and subsequently disposed of the writ petition on 20.08.1992, holding thus. “In the circumstances, while holding that the petitioner is not liable to be terminated from service and that he is entitled to continue in service till his superannuation, I direct the respondents to withhold all future increments of the petitioner from the date till he retires on superannuation, but his continuity of service shall not be disrupted for his terminal benefits.” 4. Now the petitioner’s case is that he retired from service on 30.06.1988 on attaining the age of superannuation and that the respondents have not released his increments from the year 1983 to 1992, for which he is entitled to. Therefore he seeks a direction to the respondents to release the increments from the year 1983 to 1992 and fix his scale of pay and settle his terminal benefits. It is also his contention that though he was promoted as Driver Grade-I, he was not given Grade-I scale of pay and seeks a direction to the respondents to fix him in the scale of pay attached to the post of Driver Grade-I and to consequently re-fix his pay scale. 5. Heard Sri Abhinand Kumar Shavili for the petitioner. No representation on behalf of the respondents. 6. Admittedly, this Court, by order dated 20.08.1992 passed in W.P.No.19060 of 1988, specifically directed the respondents to withhold all future increments of the petitioner from the date of order in the said writ petition till the retirement of the petitioner on attaining his superannuation. It is common knowledge that ‘from the date’ means from the date of order in the writ petition, i.e., 20.08.1992 till the date of the retirement of the petitioner, i.e., on 30.06.1998. Admittedly, this Court has categorically held that the petitioner is entitled to be continued in service till superannuation. It was also held that continuity of service shall not be disrupted for his terminal benefits. 7. The above referred order of this Court makes it clear that the respondents were directed to withhold all the future increments of the petitioner from the date of the said order till the retirement of the petitioner. Therefore, it appears that the petitioner is entitled for increments from the year 1983 to 1992. Similarly, since there was no direction to deny the scale of pay attached to the post of Driver Grade-I in the earlier writ petition, and admittedly, when the petitioner was promoted as Driver Grade-I in the year 1983, it appears that he is also entitled for the scale of pay attached to the post of Driver Grade-I. 8. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to release the increments of the petitioner from the year 1983 to 1992 in the post of Driver Grade-I and to pay him the scale of pay attached to post of Driver Grade-I. Be it made clear that as per the earlier orders of this Court in W.P.No.19060 of 1988, the petitioner is not entitled to the future increments from 20.08.1992 till the date of his retirement on 30.06.1998. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR 25th November, 2010 Bvv