THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.5161 OF 2007 DATED NOVEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN M.Bala Raju … Petitioner And The AP State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Nizamabad. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.5161 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioner, a Junior Assistant in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), assails its proceedings dated 12.04.2006, whereby his request for sanction of special grade was rejected on the ground that he had not put in the requisite 12 years of active service. He seeks a consequential direction to the APSTRC to fix his pay in the special grade with effect from 01.06.1991 with consequential benefits. The petitioner entered the service of the APSRTC as a Conductor on 25.05.1979. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in connection with certain cash and ticket irregularities detected while he was conducting a bus service on 03.08.1984 and was removed from service with effect from 31.12.1984. Aggrieved thereby, he approached the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.115 of 1992. By Award dated 01.02.1994, the Labour Court set aside the petitioner’s removal from service and directed the APSRTC to reinstate him in service without break in service but without back wages. The Labour Court further imposed upon the petitioner the modified punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect after such reinstatement. Aggrieved thereby, the APSRTC filed Writ Petition No.21489 of 1996 before this Court. By Judgment dated 10.10.1996, this Court confirmed the Award of the Labour Court. The petitioner was reinstated in service on 12.01.1996 pursuant to the Award of the Labour Court. As per the APSRTC’s Circular No.PD-73/1997 dated 24.10.1997, an employee in the specified categories who puts in 12 years of service in the same cadre would be entitled to special grade revised scales of pay. The petitioner submitted representation dated 20.03.2006 under the above Circular seeking sanction of special grade as he completed 18 years in the cadre of Conductor from the date of his initial appointment on 25.05.1979. By the impugned proceedings dated 12.04.2006, the APSRTC denied his entitlement to claim special grade on the ground that he had not rendered 12 years of active service, deleting the time that he remained out of its service, being the period 05.02.1980 to 19.08.1980 when he was placed under suspension and from 10.08.1984 to 12.01.1996, being the period covered by his suspension and removal from service which was the subject matter of I.D.No.115 of 1992. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court. In its counter, the APSTRC stated that the petitioner could not take into account the period from 05.02.1980 to 19.08.1980 as he remained under suspension during that time and the said period was directed to be treated as ‘not on duty’. There is no dispute as to the validity of the exclusion of this period from the petitioner’s length of service. However, the dispute is as to the exclusion of the latter period from 10.08.1984 to 12.01.1996. The APSRTC stated that the petitioner was again suspended on 10.08.1984 in connection with the cash and ticket irregularities detected while he was conducting the bus service on 03.08.1984 which led to the disciplinary proceedings culminating in his removal from service on 31.12.1984, the subject matter of I.D.No.115 of 1992 before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. This period of his removal from service, according to the APSRTC is also to be deducted from the petitioner’s length of service. However, it is pertinent to note that the APSRTC admitted that the petitioner was reinstated in service on 12.01.1996 without a break in service pursuant to the Award and his pay was re-fixed duly extending notional increments to him for the period that he was kept out of service. Conceding that the petitioner would have served as a Conductor for 18 years if this period of removal from service was counted, the APSRTC contended that he did not render ‘active service’ for more than 6 years and 3 months. On this ground, the APSTRC denied his eligibility to claim special grade. Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that once the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service without any break in service, the period that he remained out of service would necessarily have to be taken into account while computing the total service rendered by him in the cadre of Conductor. Refuting this allegation, Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the APSTRC, stated that the Labour Court had not granted attendant benefits to the petitioner and not having rendered active physical service, he could not claim special grade which is only to relieve stagnation in service. He placed reliance on V.V.G.REDDY v. APSRTC[1] in this regard. There can be no dispute as to the relief granted by the Labour Court in I.D.No.115 of 1992. The Labour Court specifically directed the APSTRC to reinstate the petitioner in service without a break in service. Further, the modified punishment imposed on the petitioner by the Labour Court is to the effect that he should be denied one annual increment without cumulative effect after such reinstatement. The implication of this would naturally be that the petitioner would be notionally entitled to all other increments accruing to him during the entire period as he was reinstated without a break in service. The phrase ‘without a break in service’ clearly demonstrates that the petitioner is deemed to have continued in service all through. This aspect is further exemplified by the observations made by this Court in the order passed in Writ Petition No.21489 of 1996, while confirming the said Award: “……… However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court itself directed the petitioner to be reinstated into service “without break in service” and in such view of the matter, the petitioner-workman is entitled for the regular pay scales on par with similarly situated workmen. I find substantial force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent corporation is bound to implement the award passed by the Labour Court in its true spirit and letter and give all the benefits in terms of the award to the petitioner and pay according to pay scale to which he is entitled.” The submission of the learned standing counsel with regard to the aspect of attendant benefits does not hold water as it is clear from the Award that there was no denial of such attendant benefits. On the other hand, the import of the operative portion of the Award clearly supports the interpretation that the petitioner was given the benefit of continuity of service for all purposes. V.V.G.REDDY was a case where the Labour Court specifically denied attendant benefits to the workman. That being not the situation presently, the said decision has no application to the case on hand. On the other hand, Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel, placed reliance on the Judgment of a learned Judge of this Court in M.D. RAHAMATULLAH v. DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, KARIMNAGAR[2]. The issue before the learned Judge was with regard to the eligibility of the petitioner therein to claim stagnation increments counting 12 years of service as per the Award of the Labour Court, as in the present case. The claim was resisted by the APSRTC on the ground that he had not completed 12 years of ‘active service’. Reliance in this regard was placed upon the APSRTC’s Circular dated 03.06.1989 and it was argued that persons who are deemed to be in service by virtue of the Labour Court Awards would not be entitled to claim the benefit of such stagnation increments as they were not in actual physical service. The learned Judge, relying on T.NARAYANA v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC, HYDERABAD[3], held that an employee should be deemed to be in service even during the period of suspension owing to the continuity of service granted to him by the Labour Court while directing his reinstatement and thereby, he would be eligible for the sanction of special grade which is otherwise known as ‘stagnation increment’. The learned Judge further observed that an employee who succeeded before the Labour Court and who was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service has to be treated on par with other employees as otherwise, a stigma would attach to such employee. The APSRTC’s Circular to the contrary was held to be discriminatory and violative of constitutional principles. I find merit in the submission made by Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel, that the petitioner in the present case stands on an identical footing and would therefore be entitled to similar relief. Once the Labour Court granted the relief of reinstatement without a break in service and the said Award attained finality, it is not open to the APSRTC to interpret the same to mean that the continuity of service granted thereby would be limited for particular purposes only. Such being not the import of the Award, the APSRTC cannot seek to meddle with the same by relying on its Circular instructions to the contrary. In any event, once the petitioner is deemed to have continued in service throughout it would amount to ‘active service’ as contemplated in the APSRTC’s Circular instructions and a distinction cannot be drawn on the ground that the petitioner did not actually perform duty during such period. Adopting such an interpretation would amount to reviewing the relief of continuity of service granted to the petitioner by the Labour Court. The action of the APSRTC in rejecting the petitioner’s request for sanction of special grade by taking into account only the actual physical service rendered by him cannot therefore be countenanced. The impugned proceeding dated 12.04.2006 is accordingly set aside. The APSRTC is directed to extend special grade revised scales of pay to the petitioner with effect from the date of his attaining eligibility duly taking into account the total service of the petitioner in terms of and in accordance with the Award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.115 of 1992 as explained supra. The petitioner would however not be entitled to any arrears on this account upto the date of his reinstatement in service, as the Labour Court specifically denied him back wages. This exercise, including remittance of the amounts due, shall be completed by the APSRTC within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is according allowed but in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. _______ NOVEMBER, 2010. VGSR [1] (2009) 2 SCC 668 [2] 1999 (4) ALD 197 [3] 1998 (3) ALD 304