IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19437 of 2000 Between: Sri S. Srinivasa Rao S/o. S.Benjamin A.P.S.R.T.C., Nandyal, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nandyal, Kurnool District. 2 The General Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., RTC 'X' Roads, Hyderabad. .....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 appropriate Writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents in not appropriately ﬁxing the pay scale of the Petitioner duly taking into account the period of removal from service till reinstatement also into the account for pay ﬁxation after the petitioner is reinstated into service and in paying lesser pay scale to the Petitioner than that of his juniors as illegal, irregular unjustiﬁed, Unconstitutional, unreasonable, and unsustainable and direct the Respondents to revise the pay scale of the Petitioner duly ﬁxing his pay scale after taking into account the period from the date of removal from service till reinstatement and pass such other order or orders as it may deem fit. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner who is working as an Assistant Depot Clerk in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the Corporation’), Nandyal, Kurnool District seeks directions by way of mandamus for reﬁxation of his pay pursuant to his reinstatement into service as per the orders of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1596 of 1995 dated 15-03-1996. The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the Corporation at Nandyal Depot of Kurnool District. Earlier, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the ground that he has indulged in some cash and ticket irregularities while conducting the bus bearing No. AAZ 4146 on the route “Cumbum to Nandyal” on 18-01- 1985. In the disciplinary proceedings, an order of removal from service was passed by the 1st respondent on 28-07-1985 which the petitioner had questioned before this Court in Writ Petition No. 11294 of 1987. A learned single Judge of this Court while allowing the writ petition in part directed the Corporation to appoint the petitioner as a fresh candidate. However, he carried the matter by way of appeal in Writ Appeal No. 1596 of 1995. A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 15-03-1996 ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner without back wages, instead of fresh appointment as ordered by the learned single Judge. Pursuant to the same, he was reinstated into service and continuing as such. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that though the beneﬁt of continuity of service was given by the Division Bench of this Court, his pay was not correctly ﬁxed after his reinstatement by extending the beneﬁt of notional increments during the period he was out of service. A perusal of order dated 15-03-1996 indicates that the Division Bench had merely ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner without back wages instead of fresh appointment, but there is no speciﬁc direction to extend the beneﬁt of increments notionally for the period he was out of service pursuant to the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority. In the absence of any speciﬁc direction for extending the beneﬁt of increments, whether pay ﬁxation can be done by extending the beneﬁt of increments for the period the employee was out of service, is a question which is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in APSRTC v. Abdul Kareem[1], wherein it was held that grant of increments for the period of absence is not a matter of course and the workman cannot claim the beneﬁt of increments notionally unless there is a speciﬁc direction for extending the beneﬁt of increments. In the case on hand as there is no direction in the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1596 of 1995, the petitioner cannot claim notional increments and seek reﬁxation of his pay on reinstatement. Further, with regard to continuity of service and ﬁxation of pay, it is categorically stated in the counter that the petitioner was already given the beneﬁt of continuity of service and his pay was ﬁxed in accordance with the directions of this Court. Therefore, no further direction can be issued for re-ﬁxation of pay as claimed by the petitioner. The writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs. R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dated: 11-11-2008 ks ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 A.P.Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Divisional manager, Nellore District. 3 Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Tirupati, Chittoor District. 4 2CD copies [1] (2005) 5 SCC 36