IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.22421 of 2004 Between: Md. Awad S/o Abdulla at Adilabad Depot, R/o Quilla Street, Adilabad, Adilabad District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC, rep by Depot Manager, APSRTC, Adilabad Depot, Adilabad District 2 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Adilabad Division, Adilabad District 3 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Adilabad Region, 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not fixing the pay scale of the petitioner for which the petitioner is entitled for all increments which were stopped without cumulative effect in the service career of the petitioner by calling for the Personal Case pertains to the petitioner herein and to fix the pay scale upto date and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.SADU RAJESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : W.P.No.22421 of 2004 ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not fixing the pay scale of the petitioner for which he is entitled i.e. all increments, which were stopped without cumulative effect in the service career of the petitioner, as arbitrary and illegal. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as a Driver in the respondent-A.P. State Road Transport Corporation with effect from 5-12-1977. As on the date of filing of the Writ Petition, he had completed 26 years of service. It is the case of the petitioner that only 4 increments were granted and rest of the increments were not granted. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The respondents filed a counter denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is asserted that the petitioner was removed from service on 31-10-1988 and was reinstated on consideration of the review petition with effect from 8-4-1996. Thus, he was not in service from 31-10-1988 to 7-4-1996 and no attendant benefits were granted; therefore, he was not entitled for the increments from 1988 to 1996. Prior to that, the petitioner suffered four punishments. On 17-12- 1979, he was imposed with a punishment of deferment of 2½ years increments with cumulative effect, on 7-2-1983 he was imposed with a punishment of stoppage of 5 increments with cumulative effect and on 18-6-1986 seven increments were reduced with cumulative effect. Further, on 26-3-1996 two increments were deferred with cumulative effect. In fact, before one could be expired the other punishment was imposed. Therefore, there was a cumulative effect of all the increments and that was sought to be implemented only after 7-4-1996 when he was reinstated with continuity of service, but without any attendant benefits. Thus, the punishment of reduction in the pay was implemented with effect from 18-6-1986 and it was completed by 14-12-2002 duly taking into account the suspension period, removal period and leave without any pay etc. Further, details were furnished showing the calculation of the eligibility of notional increments for the period upto 31-5-2004. As on 31-5-2004, the petitioner was having the following punishments: 1. Unexpired portion i.e. one year 6 months 6 days of punishment dt.7.2.1983 (which shall have effect); 2. Two years punishment dt.26.3.1996(which shall have effect); 3. Two years punishment dt.11.10.1985 (which shall not have effect); 4. Six months punishment dt.09.12.1986 (which shall not have effect) Total : Six years six days punishment due to be implemented. From the above, it is clear that the petitioner suffered various punishments. Therefore, it cannot be said that he is entitled for increments every year regularly. The facts, as noticed in the counter did not inspire the confidence of the Court to grant any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is unfortunate that such an employee was continued, even after suffering more than 20 increments with cumulative effect, in service. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, any increments or stagnation increments granted to the petitioner during the pendency of the Writ Petition, shall not be disturbed. No order as to costs. 19-4-2008 prk