IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7088 of 2009 Between: Sri D.R.Mohan. … Petitioner And A.P.S.R.T.C., reptd., by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and two others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri G.Ravi Mohan. Counsel for the respondents: Smt.W.V.S.Rajeswari. This Court made the following: ORDER: Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.2 in deciding on the petitioner’s claim for granting of notional increments for the period from 5-1-1999 to 22- 2-2003, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. The services of the petitioner, who is working as a conductor in respondent-A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, were terminated, by order 5-5-1999 of respondent No.3, for his unauthorized absence to duty from 2-12-1998. On the appeal filed by the petitioner, respondent No.2 allowed the same by order dated 22-2-2003 with the direction to reinstate the petitioner as a fresh conductor. Partly aggrieved by the said order to the extent of disallowing the petitioner’s continuity of service and other benefits, he approached the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur, by way of I.D.No.129 of 2004. The said appeal was allowed by order dated 15-12-2006, wherein the petitioner was granted the benefit of continuity of service with the direction to fix the monetary benefits accordingly. As the petitioner’s monetary benefits were not fixed as per the award, the petitioner made representations to the respondents, on which respondent No.2 addressed letter dated 15-11-2008 to the Senior Law Officer of the Corporation to clarify whether the petitioner is entitled to notional increments from 5-5-1999 to 22-2-2003. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite lapse of nearly four months since then, respondent No.2 has not passed any order. Having heard Sri G.Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.W.V.S.Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation, I am of the view that interest of justice would be met if respondent No.2 is directed to pass appropriate order on the claim of the petitioner for sanctioning notional increments for the above mentioned period. If for any reason respondent No.2 is not inclined to sanction the notional increments, he shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner. He shall complete this exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the above directions. -------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dt.06-4-2009 MNR