IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.13845 of 2009 Between: Tikkamaneni Bhaskar S/o.T.Pedda Ramaiah R/o. Amamcherla village, Nellore Rural Mandal Nellore District, AP. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, Rapur Depot, APSRTC Nellore District 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC Nellore Region Nellore 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 writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 and 2 in not paying the back wages of Rs.10,17,848/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Eight Only) by increasing petitioner salary from Rs.6,138/- per month to Rs.11,000/- per month from the year 1992 to till now to petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to pay the back wages of Rs.10,17,848/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Eight Hundred Forty Eight Only) by increating his salary from Rs.6,138/- per month to Rs.11,000/-per month from the year 1992 to till now to the petitioner and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. SHAIK JILANI Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. K.SRINIVAS RAO The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not paying the back wages of Rs.10,17,848/- to the writ petitioner from the year 1992 till now as illegal and consequently, to direct them to pay the same. The two respondents are the Depot Manager and the Regional Manager of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.), a stated-owned Transport Corporation. The writ petitioner is presently working as a Conductor with the A.P.S.R.T.C. He asserts that he is now being paid a monthly salary of Rs.6,138/- including allowances. His assertion for claiming higher quantum of pay and allowances is to the following effect: “I reliably came to know that, if any person having 17 years of experience in service is eligible to draw the monthly salary of Rs.11,000/-, but presently, I am drawing Rs.6,138/- per month only, as I have 17 years experience in service.” Therefore, the writ petitioner has proceeded that he is entitled to the differential amount of Rs.4,862/- and multiplied it by 12 and further multiplied by 17 and arrived at Rs.10,17,848/- and on that basis, laid claim in this writ petition. To say the least, the claim of the writ petitioner is devoid of any basis much less any valid substratum. The salary and allowances, by a public sector undertaking like A.P.S.R.T.C., are not paid on the basis of the number of years of experience of service. Every post, including the post of a Conductor, has been assigned a particular scale of pay and in that structured pay scale, annual progression is made by every employee, duly earning the increments for satisfactory service. Until and unless one puts in 12 months of satisfactory service, the increments are not liable to be released. Similarly, if an employee is found guilty of any misdemeanor, he is also liable to be penalized by way of withholding such increments or by way of reduction of his pay. Without examining all those aspects, the writ petitioner has laid a bare claim that a person of 17 years standing in the service of the Corporation, is entitled to be paid Rs.11,000/- per month. Such bald assertions cannot be acceded to form a valid basis at all. This apart, if the writ petitioner has not been paid the salary and allowances legitimately due to him for the past 17 years, he cannot sleep over the same and now rush to this Court after a lapse of number of years. The claim, if at all, is true and genuine, is barred by limitation. Further, the claim that 17 years back also, he is entitled to be paid Rs.11,000/-, only reflects the imaginary nature of the claim rather than with any substratum. Such fanciful claims are not entitled to be entertained in this writ petition and above all, violation of no enforceable right has been traced or pointed out. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to lay a proper claim, for which he is lawfully entitled to. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs. ________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Date: 13th July, 2009 Kl/ksld