IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17505 of 2008 Between: J.Yadaiah S/o. Chandraqiah R/o. Yacharam, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Bagyanagaram Region, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Falaknama Bus Depot, Hyderabad. .....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 an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not granting special grade in pursuance of the circular No. PD.65/89, dated 3-6-89 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and consequently direct the respondent to add special grade increment to the petitioner in pursuance of the circular No.PD.65/89, dated 3-5-89. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is employed as Conductor, in the year 1989. He completed 12 years of service by 2002. The Corporation issued Circular No.PD- 65/89, dated 03.05.1989, providing for sanction of stagnation increments, in case an employee continues in the same post, for a period exceeding 12 years. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been extended the benefit thereof. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The Corporation itself issued circulars, from time to time, providing for sanction of stagnation increments in favour of its employees, who do not get an opportunity of promotion, due to lack of vacancies. Though the petitioner asserts that he completed 12 years of service, by 2002, it is evident that he was removed from service, in the meanwhile, and was reinstated, on the basis of an award passed by the Labour Court. The question as to whether the service rendered by the petitioner is continuous, or has suffered any break, needs to be considered. The petitioner has to make a detailed representation, in this regard. In such an event, the respondents would have an opportunity to examine the same with reference to the record. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to make a representation about his claim and as and when such representation is made, necessary orders shall be passed thereon, within a period of three weeks from the date of its receipt. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.12.08.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ