HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.13028 of 2009 Date: March 10, 2010 Between: Bakar Ali, S/o. late Hasan Ali, aged 52 years, Occ: Driver, E.No.95165, R/o.5-8-15, Sri Ramnagar Colony, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District … Petitioner And APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, and three others … Respondents Order: The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not calculating back-wages duly adding notional increments for the period he was out of service as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the proceedings No.Peshi/402(1)/94-RM:NZB, dated 11- 04-2008, issued by the second respondent-Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nizamabad Region. 2. The petitioner, a driver in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, while driving bus bearing No.AP-9-Z-1718, on 29- 05-1992, caused an accident, in which a cyclist received injuries and died. In view of the said accident, alleging negligence on the part of the petitioner, he was removed from service by order dated 15-09-1992, as a measure of punishment. The said order was confirmed by the appellate authority by order dated 31-01-1993. On review, filed by the petitioner, the order of punishment was modified by order dated 26-03-1996, modifying the penalty of removal from service to stoppage of increments and treating the period the petitioner was out of service as not on duty. Aggrieved by that portion of the order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.32981 of 1998 before this court. This court, by order dated, 12-09-2007, allowed the said writ petition and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, by the reviewing authority. In pursuance of the said order of this court, the Regional Manager, Nizamabad Region, the second respondent herein, passed order dated 11-04-2008. By the said order, the punishment imposed on the petitioner was reviewed, by dropping the postponement of annual increment for a period of two years, which will have effect on future increments. In the said order, it is categorically stated that the period out of service was treated as continuity of service. Further, it is stated therein that the petitioner is entitled to notional increments for the period out of service and is also entitled for back-wages for the period out of service from the date of removal, i.e.15-09-1992 to the date of reinstatement, i.e. April, 1996. 3. In this case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was paid back-wages. The only grievance of the petitioner is that while calculating back-wages, notional increments have not been added for the period he was out of service. However, it is admitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that notional increments were added for the purpose of fixing pay of the petitioner pursuant to his reinstatement. 4. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated in the counter affidavit that pursuant to the order dated 11-04-2008, back-wages were calculated from 15-09-1992 to April, 1996 and Rs.2,66,798.30 Ps., was arrived at and after deducting provident fund, the petitioner was paid Rs.2,50,175/- on 12-08-2008. It is stated that the said amount was paid to the petitioner in pursuance of the order of the reviewing authority and in spite of such payment; the petitioner has filed C.C.No.615 of 2009, which ended in dismissal. Precisely, in the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to claim wages in the guise of relief of back-wages, in the light of the order dated 11-04- 2008. 5. It is not in dispute that the order of the reviewing authority dated 11-04-2008 bas become final. As per the said order, the petitioner is entitled to back-wages by adding notional increments. Thus, the benefit of continuity of service and notional increments is given. By virtue of that, the petitioner is entitled to fixation of his pay by giving the benefit of his increments, but for actual payment of back-wages in terms of the order dated 11-04-2008, the petitioner is not entitled for any addition of notional increments on the back-wages. In the light of the averments made in the counter affidavit, this court is of the opinion that back-wages which are paid to the petitioner are in accordance with the order of the second respondent dated 11-04-2008. Hence, the action of the respondents in calculating back-wages cannot be found fault with. 6. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed, however, in the circumstances with no order as to costs. ____________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) March 10, 2010 MRR