THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No. 2843 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner joined the A.P.S.R.T.C., as a Cleaner, in the year 1977, and his probation in that post was declared in the year 1978. Later on, he was appointed as Light Vehicle Driver (for short ‘the L.V. Driver’) on 01-11-1982. The petitioner was found medically unfit to perform the duties of Driver. Therefore, he was retired on medical grounds. The petitioner made an application for extension of additional monetary benefit under the scheme, framed by the Corporation. His case was not considered on the ground that he is not a Heavy Vehicle Driver. Thereupon, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.28683 of 2008. The writ petition was allowed on 29-04-2009, and it was held that the petitioner is entitled for the benefit. In compliance with the orders of this Court, the Corporation paid a sum of Rs.2,37,136/- to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that, his service was counted only from 01-11-1982, and not from the date of his initial appointment. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit. According to them, there is no promotion from the post of Cleaner to L.V. Driver, and the petitioner came to be appointed independently for that post, on selection. It is further stated that the additional monetary benefit is specific and confined to the post of Drivers, and the service rendered by an employee in any other category, or post, cannot be taken into account, for that post. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is under the impression that he was promoted from the post of Cleaner to the post of L.V. Driver, and on that basis he contends that his entire service must be taken into account. Additional monetary benefit is provided by the Corporation, only for Drivers, who are rendered medically unfit, and not for any other category of employees. The salary of 1 ½ months’, for each year of service, is to be paid under that benefit. It is axiomatic that it is only the service rendered as Driver, that would count for this purpose. It has already been mentioned that the petitioner was not promoted to the post of L.V Driver, and he was independently appointed for that post. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for payment of any benefit, for the service rendered by him, as Cleaner. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.25-10-2010. KO