IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20207 of 2000 Between: A.Kishtaiah ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Adilabad District. 2. The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Mancherial Depot, Adilabad District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not ﬁxing the pay of the petitioner by giving Notional Increments for the period during which the petitioner was out of service i.e., from 24-10- 1980 to 27-08-1988 as illegal, arbitrary unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents herein to ﬁx the pay of the petitioner by giving notional increments for the said period. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent : SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY FOR R The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 20207 of 2000 O R D E R: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not ﬁxing the pay scale of the petitioner by giving notional increments for the period for which he was out of service i.e. from 24-10-1980 to 27-08-1988 as illegal and arbitrary. In the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service by order dated 24-10-1980. As against the said order of removal, he ﬁled I.D.No.244 of 1986 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal. The Tribunal, by award, dated 11-12-1987, ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner into service with continuity of service, but without back wages. In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of continuity of service ordered by the Tribunal, the respondents, after reinstatement, have not ﬁxed his pay by computing the notional increments for the period from 24- 10-1980 to 24-08-1988. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SANATH KUMAR DWIVEDI V. DHAR JILA SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK MARYADIT AND OTHERS[1]. But, however, it is to be seen that the said question is no more a res integra in view of the recent judgment of the Apex Court in A.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION V. ABDUL KAREEM[2]. In the said judgment, while considering the very same issue, the Apex Court has noted that in the absence of speciﬁc direction for computation of increments, merely because continuity of service is ordered, the delinquent employee is not entitled for notional increment for ﬁxation of pay, after reinstatement. Para 11 of the judgment, which is relevant to the extent reads as follows: “Reverting to the facts of the case at hand, as already noticed, the Labour Court speciﬁcally directed that the reinstatement would be without back wages. There is no speciﬁc direction that the employee would be entitled to all the consequential beneﬁts. Therefore, in the absence of speciﬁc direction in that regard, merely because an employee has been directed to be reinstated without back wages, he cannot claim beneﬁt of increments notionally earned during the period when he was not on duty during the period when he was out of service. It would be incongruous to suggest that an employee, having been held guilty and remained absent from duty for a long time, continues to earn increments though there is no payment of wages for the period of absence.” In view of the judgment (2 supra) referred above, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought, in the absence of any order to that effect by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY,J Date: 21-08-2008 KLP [1] 2002 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 94 [2] 2005 Supreme Court Cases L&S 790