IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 20162 of 1999 BETWEEN: S.Prabhakar Rao, S/o Late Hanmanth Rao, R/o 7-91, Post Tadwal, Errapahad, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. State Road Transport Corpn; Rep By its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad; 2 The Depot Mnanager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Bus Depot; Kama Reddy, 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 appropriate Writ order or direction particularly one in the Nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in reducing the petitioners pay from Rs.4863/- to Rs. 4468/- with out serving any order and with out any opportunity as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and in violation of Articles, 14,16 & 21 of the constitution of India and consequential grant the relief of restoration of pay from Rs. 4468/- to Rs.4863/- w.e.f. June 99 along with its consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is working as a Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondent No.2 in reducing his pay from Rs.4863/- to Rs.4468/- without giving him an opportunity of hearing, as illegal. 2. The petitioner has joined the service of the Corporation as a Conductor on 30.11.1977. At relevant point of time, he was being paid the basic pay of Rs.4863/-, but however, in the pay slip issued for the month of June 1999, his pay was shown as Rs.4468/-, which resulted in reduction of his salary by Rs.900/- per month. It is the case of the petitioner that his pay was reduced without giving him any notice or opportunity. 3. During the pendency of this writ petition, this Court granted interim orders, directing the respondents to continue to pay the petitioner, the basic pay of Rs.4863/-, and the said order continued all along. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the Corporation. 4. When the matter is taken up, on the basis of para-wise remarks, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioner has suffered certain punishments as a measure of penalty in disciplinary proceedings, and on implementation of such orders, his pay is reduced. 5. For any reason, if the pay of the petitioner was to be reduced, the respondents could not have done the same without notifying the ground for such reduction. The pay of the petitioner was reduced in the year 1999, but he was being paid the pay of Rs.4863/- during the pendency of this writ petition, in view of the interim orders of this Court. 6. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the respondents to continue the pay of the petitioner without reduction. However, it is made clear that if the pay of the petitioner is to be altered or to be reduced, this order will not preclude the respondents from passing appropriate orders after giving notice to the petitioner and after hearing him. 7. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 20th November 2008 ajr