IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No : 12466 of 2004 Between: C. Ramgopal Reddy S/o Ramlingareddy Depot, Kurnool District, R/o Koilakuntla ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC., Kurnool 2 The Depot Manager, Koilakuntla Depot, APSRTC., Koilakuntla, Kurnool District 3 the Government of A.P., rep by Secretary, Labour Training & Factories (Lab.I) Dept., Secretariat 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 more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not fixing the proper pay after awarding the notional increments and also not paying the arrears of salary to the petitioner as conductor, as well as the Award of the Labour Court in ID No. 156/98 dt 2-1-2001 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ananthapur in not awarding the back wages is arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and violative of art 14 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to fix proper pay taking into consideration the continuity of service by awarding notional increments and also pay the arrears of back wages to the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.B.RAM MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 13204 of 2004 Between: CH. K. Mohan Rao, S/o. Krishna Murthy, Markapur, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Prakasam Region, Ongole, Prakasam District. .....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 a Writ, order or directions, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner by allowing national increments from the date of his suspension to date of reinstatement and pay arrears from the date of his reinstatement. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No : 13307 of 2004 Between: J.Laxmi Narayana, s/o Vengaiah, r/o 49-148(2), Miryalapalem, Near Rama Temple, Ongole, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, rep., by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Prakasam Region, Ongole, Prakasam District. .....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 a writ, or order or directions more in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refix the pay of the petitioner by allowing all notional increments from the date of suspension to till reinstatement and pay arrears from the date of reinstatement. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P Nos: 12466, 13204 and 13307 of 2004 COMMON ORDER: Heard both the counsel. 2. Since the issue involved in all these three writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioners in all these three writ petitions are conductors working in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and they were charge sheeted for cash and ticket irregularities and after conducting of the enquiry, they were terminated from service and consequently after exhausting all the administrative remedies, they approached the respective Tribunals and the Tribunal after considering the material evidence on record, found the petitioners guilty of the charges, but however finding that the punishment imposed is not appropriate to the charges leveled, exercising the jurisdiction under Section 11-A, ordered reinstatement without back wages, but with continuity of service. 4. Now the case of the petitioners is that, as they were granted reinstatement with continuity of service, they are entitled for notional increments and accordingly their pay has to be fixed. As the Corporation refused to add the notional increments, while fixing their pay, they filed the present writ petitions. 5. The issue raised by the petitioners is no longer res integra. The Apex Court in the decision reported in A.P.S.R.T.C. vs. S.NARASAGOUND[1] 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 unauthorized absence from duty cannot claim the benefit of increments notionally earned during the period of unauthorized absence in the absence of a specific direction in that regard merely because he has been directed to be reinstated with the benefit of continuity in service.” 6. From the above judgment of the Apex Court it is clear that if the employee is found guilty of the charge, but is ordered reinstatement into service, with simple direction for continuity of service, and without any specific direction for increments, he is not entitled for notional increments during the period he was out of service. In the present case also, the charges against the petitioners are proved, but finding the punishment to be excessive and exercising the jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, they were ordered to be reinstated into service with a simple direction of continuity of service. Therefore, as per the judgment of the Apex Court, they are not entitled for notional increments during the period they are out of service. Hence, no exception can be taken to the action of the respondent – Corporation, in not adding the notional increments to the scale of pay of the petitioners, while fixing their pay, pursuant to the orders of reinstatement passed by the Tribunal. 7. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petitions and they are accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ 01—07—2008 MRB [1] (2003) 2 SCC 212