THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 16218 OF 2007 Dt: 19th March 2008 Between: P. Venkateshwara Rao …Petitioner and The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kodad Bus Depot & another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 16218 OF 2007 O R D E R: The petitioner is employed as a Conductor in the Nalgonda Depot of APSRTC. He was removed from service, on the charges of irregularities as to issue of tickets, vide order dated 14.5.1994. The appeal and revision filed by the petitioner, before the Departmental Authorities, and I.D.No.235 of 1996, filed before the Labour Court, did not yield any result. Thereupon, the petitioner filed W.P.No.14338 of 2001. Through its order dated, 14.7.2005, this court had set aside the order of removal, and directed reinstatement of the petitioner. Apart from that, it was observed that the petitioner shall be entitled for notional increments and terminal benefits. The petitioner claims that he is not extended the benefit of stagnation increment, on completion of 12 years, by placing incorrect interpretation in orders of this court. Heard Sri P. Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt. B.G. Umadevi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner came to be reinstated, in pursuance of the order passed by this court in W.P.No.14338 of 2001. The benefit of stagnation increment is extendible to those persons, who have continued in the same category, for a period of 12 years. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was removed from service, before completion of 12 years of service. He was no doubt extended the benefit of notional increments and retirement benefits. However, the order passed by this court is totally silent about the continuity of service. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was entitled to treat the period, between the date of removal and date of reinstatement, as active service. At any rate, if the petitioner wanted any clarification, in this regard, he ought to have filed a review petition. This court is not inclined to grant any relief in this writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ 19th March 2008 PAN