HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1170 of 2001 ORAL ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order, dated 20-11-2000, in proceedings No.L3/876(24)/2000-RM/GNT, passed by the Regional Manager, Guntur Region of the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for brevity “the Corporation”) rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of notional increments and other benefits for the period from 23-04-1994 to 07-05-1999 and to pay arrears of salary. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Driver, Gr.II and subsequently promoted as Driver, Gr.I. On the ground that he suffered disability, based on the medical certification vide M.C.No.064772, dated 17-08-1993, the petitioner was retired from service on medical grounds on 23-06-1994. In view of the retirement on medical grounds, he was paid the monetary benefit in a sum of Rs.51,842-35 ps. Subsequently, he filed W.P.No.5682 of 1997 mainly on the ground that as per the Circular instructions, 10% of vacancies are reserved for medically unfit Drivers and in spite of the same, he was not given appointment in a suitable vacancy. The said writ petition was disposed of by order, dated 25-03-1997, and as per the directions of this Court, the petitioner was appointed as Cleaner under 10% quota earmarked for medically unfit Drivers. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed another writ petition in W.P.No.13702 of 2000 seeking a direction to re-fix his pay duly calculating the notional increments for the period from 23-06-1994 to 07-05-1999 for which he was out of service and also to consider his representation, dated 27-04-2000. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court, by order dated 16-10-2000, with a direction to the respondents therein to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner. Accordingly, the representation of the petitioner was considered and through the impugned proceedings, dated 20-11-2000, the claim of the petitioner was rejected stating that he is not entitled for any notional increments for the period from 23-06-1994 to 10-05-1999. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was retired on medical grounds on 23-06-1994, however, he was appointed as Cleaner on 07-05-1999. Inspite of the same, for no fault of him, the benefit of continuity of service for the period from 23- 06-1994 to 07-05-1999 was not given to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was not given the pay protection as per the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ (Service) Regulations, 1964 (for brevity “the Regulations”) and he was not offered any option for reversion while retiring him from service on 23- 06-1994. It is also submitted that as much as he was retired from service on medical grounds, he is entitled for all the benefits even from 23-06-1994 to 07-05-1999. 4. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the Corporation while narrating the facts relating to retirement of the petitioner on medical grounds and his further appointment as Cleaner as per the directions of this Court in W.P.No.5682 of 1997. It is stated that after appointment of the petitioner as Cleaner, his pay was fixed by protecting the pay in the last drawn pay scale in the cadre of Driver, Gr.I. Further, it is stated that as the petitioner was out of service for the period from 23-06-1994 to 07-05-1999, the said period was treated as ‘not on duty’. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation. 6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, while retiring him on medical grounds, the petitioner was not given the option for reversion to the previous post held by him as per Regulation 6A (4) of the Regulations, however, the said provision is not applicable. Sub-Regulation (4) of Regulation 6A of the Regulations applies only in the event of holding any other post previously by the employee. 7. In the instant case, the petitioner was holding the post of Driver and he did not hold any other post prior to his appointment. In any event, even as per the Regulations and the Circular instructions, the case of the petitioner was considered for re-appointment pursuant to the directions of this Court and he was re- appointed as Cleaner on 07-05-1999. 8. From a perusal of the impugned proceedings, dated 20-11-2000, and the averments in the counter affidavit, it is clear that on appointment to the post of Cleaner, the last drawn pay of the petitioner in the category of Driver, Gr.I was protected. The impugned order also reveals that the benefit of continuity of service was allowed to him from the date of his initial appointment as Driver by treating the period from 23-06-1994 to 07-05-1999 as ‘not on duty’. 9. As much as the last pay of the petitioner on the date of his retirement on medical grounds on 23-06-1994 is protected on his appointment as Cleaner on 07-05-1999, I do not find any illegality in the impugned proceedings. The petitioner, though seeks notional increments, however, he was not in service for the period from 23-06- 1994 to 07-05-1999. Therefore, the respondents have rightly treated the said period as ‘not on duty’ and the petitioner is not entitled for any further relief. 10. For the foregoing, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 02-12-2008. Msr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1170 of 2001 02-12-2008 Msr