HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO. 46 OF 2005 Between: The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool and two others ………….Appellants AND B. Maddaiah S/o B. Laxmanna ………….Respondent JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Appeal has been preferred by the Management of APSRTC questioning the correctness of the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, who allowed the writ petition viz., W.P.No.18595 of 2004 instituted by the respondent-Workman. The respondent was employed as a Driver with the APSRTC. He was removed from service on 4.11.1992 on the allegation of rash and negligent driving. He instituted I.D.No. 181 of 1998 before the Labour Court, which allowed the said I.D by ordering for his reinstatement with the benefit of continuity of service but without backwages. Pursuant to the said award, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 6.11.2002. But however, he was not extended the benefit of continuity of service. Therefore, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition, seeking the benefit of continuity of service as ordered by the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge noticed the judgment of the Division Bench in REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, NIZAMABAD V. B. CHANDER RAO, (W.P.No. 2424 of 2003 dated 7.8.2003), wherein it is held that an employee is entitled for notional increments in pursuance of the Labour Court order. We have heard the learned Standing counsel for the appellant-APSRTC and the learned counsel for the respondent-Workman. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider the question in its judgment rendered in A.P.S.R.T.C AND ANOTHER VS. S. NARSAGOUD[1]. The Supreme Court in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the said judgment held as under: “9. We find merit in the submission so made. There is a difference between an order of reinstatement accompanied by a simple direction for continuity of service and a direction where reinstatement is accompanied by a specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, which necessarily flow from reinstatement or accompanied by a specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to the benefit of the increments earned during the period of absence. In our opinion, the employee after having been held guilty of unauthorised absence from duty cannot claim the benefit of increments notionally earned during the period of unauthorised absence in the absence of a specific direction in that regard and merely because he has been directed to be reinstated with the benefit of continuity in service. 10. The Regulations referred to hereinabove clearly spell out that the period spent on the extraordinary leave or leave without pay or a period of overstayal 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 overstayal 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 spend 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.” Once again a similar question was considered by the Supreme Court in A.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS VS. ABDUL KAREEM[2] after noticing its earlier judgment rendered in A.P.S.R.T.C AND ANOTHER VS. S. NARSAGOUD (supra-1), reiterated the same principle. It is now well settled that where there is no specific direction issued by the Labour Court that the employee would be entitled to all the consequential benefits, merely because an employee has been directed to be reinstated without backwages, he cannot claim a benefit of increments notionally earned during the period when he was not on duty. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the Labour Court has ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner with the benefit of continuity of service but without backwages, apart from imposing the punishment of deferment of four increments. It is therefore, clear that the respondent- employee will not be entitled to claim backwages for the period he was out of employment, till he was reinstated on 6.11.2002. The Labour Court has also ordered for imposition of penalty of deferring his four annual increments with cumulative effect. Therefore, the benefit of continuity of service is liable to be extended to the employee upon his reinstatement that could not be denied, inasmuch as the award has become final. The appellant-APSRTC cannot deny the respondent employee the benefit of continuity of service. Unless the continuity of service benefit is promptly worked out, the imposition of further penalty of withholding of four increments with cumulative effect cannot be worked out properly. Therefore, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. Appellants are directed to extend the benefit of continuity of past service upon reinstatement of the respondent-workman ordered on 6.11.2002 and thereafter give effect to the punishment of stoppage of four annual increments with cumulative effect. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J DATE: 02.12.2011 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies. [1] (2003) 2 SCC 212 [2] (2005) 6 SCC 36