HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.875 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: ( per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) This Writ Appeal has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 23.9.2004 passed in WP No.17095 of 2004 by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the Writ Petition was disposed of directing the respondents therein to fix pay by taking into consideration the notional increments for the period during which the petitioner was out of service pursuant to the award dated 27.08.2001. 2. When the matter is taken up for disposal, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the subject matter of this writ appeal is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. AND ANOTHER VS. S. NARSAGOUD[1][1], wherein the Supreme Court at paragraphs 10 and 11 observed as under:- “10. The Regulations referred to herein above clearly spell out that the period spent on the extraordinary leave or leave without pay or a period of over stayal after the expiry of leave or joining time cannot count towards increments unless the order of the competent authority sanctioning the extraordinary leave or leave without pay or the order commuting the period of over stayal into extraordinary leave or leave without pay is accompanied by a specific order to count the period for increments. A period of unauthorised absence from duty treated as a misconduct and held liable to be punished by way of penalty cannot be placed on a footing better than the period of extraordinary leave or leave without pay or a period of overstayal. Ordinarily, the increments are earned on account of the period actually spent on duty or during the period spent on leave, the entitlement to which has been earned on account of the period actually spent on duty. The direction of the High Court entitling the respondent to earn increments during the period of unauthorised absence from duty though held liable to be punished in departmental inquiry proceedings would amount to putting a premium on the misconduct of the employee. 11. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court and upheld by the Division Bench cannot be sustained. The judgment of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench are, both, set aside. The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.” 3. Following the above ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, this Writ Appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 19.8.2004 of the learned Single Judge is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J DATED:10.10.2011 Nrg ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies. [1][1] (2003) 2 SCC 212