HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 11922 of 2007 Date: 01.12.2009 Between: K.Latchu, Ibrajo,[atma,. Ranga Reddy District. … Petitioners And APSRTC, Rep., by its Managing Director, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 11922 of 2007 O R D E R: The petitioner herein is working as Conductor in the A.P.State Road Tansport Corporation. This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the inaction on the part of the Corporation in not granting the stagnation increment in spite of the fact that the petitioner has completed 12 years of service by 01.03.2006 as arbitrary and illegal. It is not in dispute that though the petitioner was removed from service on 04.04.1996, by virtue of the award made in I.D.No.113 of 1999, dated 31.08.2000, he was reinstated into service with continuity of service. It is also not in dispute that the said award bas become finale. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record as well as the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation. I n M.D.Rahmatullah v. Depot Manager, APSRTC, Karimnagar[1], this Court while dealing with a case based on identical facts held that the Circular dated 11.07.1990 was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. This Court further held that the employee who has succeeded before the Labour Court and who has been directed to be reinstated with continuity of service shall be treated on par with all other employees. Otherwise, a stigma will be attached to the employees who are reinstated by virtue of the award of the Labour Court, if the impugned Circular is allowed to continue. It is not disputed before this Court that the view expressed in the above decision has become final and holds the field as on today. In the circumstances, it is not open to the Corporation to contend that the period during which the petitioner was out of service cannot be taken into consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for stagnation increment without deducting the period during which he was out of service for the purpose of computing 12 years period and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J Date: 01.12.2009 KLP [1] 1999 (4) ALD 197