IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18576 of 2000 Between: 1 K. Laxmaiah, S/o. Sri Kistaiah, R/o. C/o. D.V.Rao, H.No.30 MIG-I New Govt housing Board, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad District. 2 P.P.Goud, S/o. Sri Yilaiah, R/o. C/o. D.V.Rao H.No. 30, MIG-I, New Govt. Housing Board, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Regional Manager, Nizamabad Region, Nizamabad District. 2 A.P.S.R.T.C. , Rep. by its Depot Manager, Nizamabad Bus Depot, Nizamabad 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 direction or a writ more particularly one in nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not adding the notional increments to our pay and not re-ﬁxing our pay as per the continuity of service granted by the Labour Court in I.D.No. 49/92, dated 28.05.1993 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust contrary to the judgments of this Hon'ble Court and violative of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of constitution of India and set aside the same and consequentially direct the respondents to pay notional increments and re-ﬁx on pay and pay the arrears of those notional increments till date and pay arrears of difference of wages to till date forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.G.S.S.SIVA KESAVA Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 18576 of 2000 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioners seek directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not adding the notional increments for the period for which they are out of service, as illegal and arbitrary, and to re-fix their pay. 2. The petitioners were among the 17 Conductors who were removed from the services of the respondent- Corporation. The orders of removal was passed by the Depot Manager, Nizamabad who is the appointing authority. These petitioners have carried the matter in appeal by ﬁling an appeal before the Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Nizamabad. The appellate authority has allowed the appeal in part, granting directions for appointment of the petitioners as fresh candidates. Seeking the beneﬁt of their past service and seniority, the petitioners, through their Union i.e. Branch Secretary, APSRTC Employees Union, have placed an industrial dispute and on failure of conciliation, the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, by the Government. The same was considered in I.D.No.49 of 1992, and by award dated 28th May 1993, the Tribunal has directed to treat the services of the petitioners as continuous for all purposes, except back wages. Though they were reinstated into service pursuant to the award of the Tribunal, but however, on the ground that inspite of the directions issued by the Tribunal in its Award dated 28th May 1993, their pay was not re- ﬁxed by adding notional increments for the period for which they were not in service, the petitioners seek directions to add notional increments to their pay for the period for which they were out of service and accordingly to re-fix their pay. 3. Though no counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled, the question of granting notional increments is no more a res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Abdul Kareem [1], and in the case of Y.Laxma Reddy v. APSRTC [2]. In the case of APSRTC v. Abdul Kareem (supra 1), referring to an earlier judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made a distinction between the cases where an order of reinstatement is passed with a simple direction for continuity of service, and the cases where an order of reinstatement is accompanied by a speciﬁc direction with regard to the entitlement of an employee for all consequential beneﬁts during the period of absence. Similar distinction is also made in the judgment in the case of I.Laxma Reddy (supra 2), wherein it is held; “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 and merely because he has been directed to be reinstated with the beneﬁt of continuity in service.” 4. Upon a perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it is clear that there is no speciﬁc direction to give the beneﬁt of adding any increments for the period for which the petitioners were out of service. Therefore, there is no basis for the relief, which the petitioners are seeking in the writ petition, for adding notional increments and also to re-ﬁx their pay accordingly. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 30th October 2008 ajr [1] 2005 AIR (SCW) 3809 [2] 2007 (13) SCALE 383