IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 13077 of 1999 Between: T.S.Vishwanath Singh, S/o. T. Narayan Singh, O/o. Chief Personnel Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Chief Personnel Manager, Head Office, Musheerabad, Hyderabad-20. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to declare the action of the respondent Corporation in rejecting the case of the petitioner for grant of special grade increments in the post of Record Tracer vide impugned proceedings No. P2/295(35)/93-PO(IV) dated 15/09/1994 issued by the 2nd respondent and confirmed by the 1st respondent vide proceeding No. P2/544(9)/98-PO-IV dated 23/03/1999 as arbitrary, illegal and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by issuance of a Writ, order or direction, one more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and consequently direct the respondents to grant special grade increments to the petitioner in the post of Record Tracer from the year 1991 onwards and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SRI RAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.13077 OF 1999 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings No.P2/295(35)/93-PO(IV) dated 15.09.1994 issued by the second respondent herein which stood confirmed by the proceedings No.P2/544(9)/98-PO-IV dated 23.03.1999 issued by the first respondent, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of special grade increments in the post of Record Tracer in the service of the respondent-Corporation came to be rejected. Heard Sri S.Sri Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondent-Corporation. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was originally appointed as Office Boy in the respondent-Corporation on 08.01.1976 and in due course he was promoted to the next higher post of Record Tracer in the respondent-Corporation on 10.12.1979. He claims to have passed the qualifying test prescribed for promotion to the next higher post of Routine Clerk in the year 1980. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Routine Clerk due to administrative exigencies under Regulation 30 of APSRTC Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966, on 20.02.1982. It is admitted by the petitioner that a promotee under Regulation 30 is not entitled to probationary rights in the promoted post and that it is an adhoc arrangement only to cope with administrative exigencies. According to the petitioner, he was sought to be reverted from the post of Routine Clerk for want of a vacancy by proceedings dated 24.11.1987 and he challenged the same before this Court in Writ Petition No.18121 of 1987. In the first instance, this Court granted an interim order on 01.12.1987 suspending the operation of the proceedings dated 24.11.1987, thereby permitting the petitioner to continue in service as a Routine Clerk. However, the writ petition itself came to be dismissed by this Court on 10.07.1990 and basing on the same, the petitioner was reverted from the post of Routine Clerk to that of Record Tracer vide proceedings dated 17.11.1990. The petitioner seeks to draw the benefit under Circular No.65/89 dated 03.06.1989 which is said to be a scheme for grant of special grade increments floated in pursuance of a settlement entered into by the respondent-Corporation under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. As per the said circular, employees working in a post for 12 years and more were granted special grade increments so as to encourage them to reach higher levels of efficiency. The petitioner, claiming that he had completed 12 years of service as Record Tracer by the year 1991, i.e. reckoning his service from 10.12.1979 to 09.12.1991, made a representation to the respondent- Corporation on 20.11.1993 seeking the benefit of the said circular. However, his request was rejected by the respondent-Corporation by an order of the second respondent herein dated15.09.1994 stating that the petitioner had not completed 12 years of service as Record Tracer as per clause 9 of the circular dated 03.06.1989. The petitioner filed another representation on 12.05.1997 seeking review of the earlier proceedings dated 15.09.1994 and the same also came to be rejected by the proceedings dated 23.03.1999 issued by the second respondent. It is pertinent to note that the proceedings dated 23.03.1999 were issued with the approval of the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of the APSRTC, who is the first respondent herein. The petitioner challenges the proceedings dated 15.09.1994 as confirmed by the subsequent proceedings dated 23.03.1999, rejecting his request for special grade increments relying upon the Regulation 13(4) of the APSRTC Employees’ (Pay and Allowance) Regulations, 1964, which provides for reckoning of service put in on a higher post on officiation for fixation of pay scales upon reversion to the substantive post. A counter affidavit is filed by the Law Officer of the respondent-Corporation claiming authority to depose on behalf of the respondent-Corporation under its resolution No.125/94 dated 08.09.1994. It is stated in the counter that the petitioner, having been promoted as Routine Clerk under Regulation 30, put in a service of 8 years, 8months and 24 days in the said post in all and, therefore, the said period has to be excluded for reckoning the period of 12 years in the post of Record Tracer, as claimed by the petitioner. Reference is made to the clarification issued by the respondent-Corporation through Circular No.PD-50/1993 dated 09.07.1993. However, I find that the said circular dated 09.07.1993 has no application to the facts of the present case as it pertains to employees who were promoted to a higher post either on regular or temporary basis and refused/rejected the same or employees who were promoted and reverted at their own request and the said categories were held not eligible for special grades. In the present case, the petitioner who was granted an adhoc promotion due to administrative exigencies was reverted to his substantive post of Record Tracer for want of vacancy. Similarly, Regulation 13(4) of the APSRTC Employees’ (Pay and Allowance) Regulations, 1964, relied upon by the petitioner has no relevance to the facts of the case inasmuch as the same deals with the issue of reckoning the service put in by an employee in a higher post on officiation and upon his being reverted to the substantive post so for as the fixation of pay scales is concerned. The present case deals with grant of special grade increments as a measure of alleviation of stagnation in a post for 12 years or more. Therefore, the petitioner’s case has to be considered only under the provisions of the circular dated 03.06.1989. In this regard, it is relevant to note clause 2 of the circular dated 03.06.1989, which reads as follows: “2. All Service including the service put in under Regulation 17 or Regulation 30 (but not on casual basis) shall be counted for computing twelve (12) years of service in the same post;” The above clause makes it clear that if an employee is granted adhoc promotion under Regulation 30 to a higher post, the service rendered by him consequent to such promotion would be taken into account for reckoning the 12 years of service in that post. The implication of this clause is that in the event of such a promotee being reverted to his substantive post for whatever reason, he would not be entitled to reckon the period of service rendered by him in the promotion post as service rendered by him in the substantive lower post. It is no doubt true that the respondent-Corporation, while rejecting the request of the petitioner, placed reliance on clause 9 of the circular dated 03.06.1989. Clause 9 reads as follows: “9. Out of twelve (12) years of service in the present post as envisaged, if any employee is reverted to his/her former post for a specific period (say 6 months or one year) and thereafter restored to his/her post then existing, it cannot be construed as having continuous twelve (12) years of service. The service period put in on reversion shall have to be deducted to arrive at 12 years of service or more in the cases.” According to this clause, the period of service for which an employee is reverted to his former post would not be taken into consideration while reckoning the 12 years of service in his present post. The service period which he rendered on reversion would have to be deducted from the service in his present post while computing the 12 years period entitling him for grant of special grade increments. The fact situation of the present case does not attract clause 9 inasmuch as the petitioner was given an adhoc promotion and thereafter reverted to his substantive post and his claim for grant of special grade increments is based on the alleged service of 12 years rendered by him in the substantive post. The counter affidavit of the respondent-Corporation further states that another Circular bearing No.PD-113/1989 dated 05.09.1989 was issued further clarifying the earlier circular dated 03.06.1989. This circular makes it clear that if any employee had spent some service in higher officiating post under Regulation 30 and was later reverted, his case has to be considered for special grade duly deducting the periods spent in the officiating post while reckoning the 12 years of continuous service. In the light of this last clarification, it is manifest that the petitioner is not entitled to claim that the period of service of 8 years, 8months and 24 days rendered by him in the promotion post of Routine Clerk should be taken into consideration for reckoning the period of 12 years of service in the substantive post of Record Tracer held by him. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner did not complete the requisite period of 12 years in the post of Record Tracer entitling him to the grant of special grade increments under Circular No.PD-65/1989 dated 03.06.1989 and the rejection of his request in this regard by the respondent-Corporation under proceedings dated 15.09.1994 as confirmed by the subsequent proceedings dated 23.03.1999 cannot be found fault with. The writ petition is, therefore, devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR, J. 18th August, 2008. VGSR