IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16752 of 2000 Between: G.Gangi Setty S/o. G.Pedda Gangaiah R/o. Proddatur, Cuddapah District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep by its Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Personnel Officer, A.P.S.R.T.C O/o. The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Cuddapah Region, Cuddapah District. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Proddatur Depot, Cuddapah District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent denying the national Increments during the period of removal from 19.7.80 to 7.9.90 as there is no specific directions from the Hon'ble High Court and the Circular No. PD-91/99 Dt. 30.9.99 is not applicable and petitioner not reinstated into service as the period of suspension without pay cannot be treated as spent on duty or in service and as not eligible for drawal of increments during the period of suspension and the suspension to till the date of removal in proceedings No. E1/255(10)/2000-RM'C' dt. 24.6.2000 as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to Art. 14,16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Circular No. PD-91/99 Dt. 30.9.99 and liable to be set aside consequently seeking a direction to the respondent to refix the pay duly adding national increments from the date of suspension dt. 28.7.79 to till the date of reinstatements dt. 7.9.90 and to release the consequential benefits flowing out of such fixation and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Courts deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. S.A.K.MYNUDDIN Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16752 of 2000 ORAL ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions for re-fixation of his pay after reinstatement into service pursuant to the Award, dated 21-05-1990, in I.D.No.224 of 1989 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, (for brevity “the Tribunal”) by calculating the notional increments for the period for which he was out of service i.e., from 19-07-1980 to 07-09-1990. 2. The petitioner, while working as Conductor in the service of the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity “the Corporation”), was removed from service as a measure of penalty. The said removal orders were challenged before the Tribunal in I.D.No.224 of 1989. By Award, dated 21-05-1990, the Tribunal directed the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without backwages. 3. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that in view of the Award passed by the Tribunal extending the benefit of continuity of service, after reinstatement into service, the respondents ought to have fixed his pay by extending the benefit of notional increments for the period from 19-07-1980 to 07-09-1990 for which he was out of service. 4. This issue is no more res integra in view of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in APSRTC v. ABDUL KAREEM[1] and J.K. SYNTHETICS LTD. v. K.P.AGRAWAL[2]. 5. In ABDUL KAREEM’s case (1 supra), the very issue viz., entitlement of the workman for claiming increments was considered by the Apex Court when the benefit of continuity of service was given. In the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court held that the workman is not entitled to any increments notionally for the period for which he was out of service in the absence of any specific direction, in that regard. 6. In the case on hand, from a bare perusal of the Award, dated 21- 05-1990, passed by the Tribunal in I.D.No.224 of 1989, it is clear that there is no specific direction either for extending the benefit of notional increments or any other attendant benefits for the period for which the petitioner was out of service. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for extending the benefit of notional increments. 7. For the foregoing, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 26-11-2008. Msr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16752 of 2000 26-11-2008 Msr [1] (2005) 6 SCC 36 [2] (2007) 2 SCC 433