IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 13957 of 2004 Between: 1 A.Ramesh, s/o Somaiah, (E-255103), APSRTC, Hyderabad II Depot (RR Region), Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. 2 M.Venkata Ramulu, s/o Balaswamy, (E-300711) APSRTC, Hyderabad II Depot, (RR Region) Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. 3 K.S.Reddy, s/o Venkat Reddy, APSRTC, Hyderabad I Depot (RR Region), Gowliguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Ranga Reddy Region, at Gowliguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad II Depot, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad I Depot, Gowliguda, Hyderabad. .....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 issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in not giving Special Grade/Stagnation Increment to the petitioners with effect from their completion of 12 years of service in APSRTC in total (All regions) and counting the present region's service of 12 years for Special Grade as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unreasonable and contrary to the circulars and contrary to the judgments of this Hon'ble Court and consequently direct the respondents to effect the 12 years stagnation increment/Special Grade to the petitioners on their completion of 12 years of service in all there regions of the Corporation and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.HARINATH, SC for A.P.S.R.T.C. The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioners are claiming that they have been working in the respondent A.P. State Road Transport Corporation as Conductors for more than 12 years, therefore, by virtue of Circular No.PD-113 of 1989, dated 3-6-1989, the petitioners are entitled to stagnation increment. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent- Corporation did not implement the said circular, and did not grant them the stagnation increment on completion of 12 years service. Some conductors and drivers, who are working under the respondent Corporation, approached this Court by way of W.P.No.5726 of 2000, dated 23-8-2002 and the same is allowed by this Court through an order dated 29-8-1998, directing the respondent to extend the benefit of stagnation increment to those petitioners who have completed 12 years of service. The respondent corporation aggrieved by the said order, preferred Writ Appeal No.1301 of 2000 and the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said Writ Appeal through an order dated 29-10-2002. 3. In view of the order of this Court in the above Writ Appeal, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the stagnation increment by virtue of the circular issued by the respondent on 3-6-1989, on condition that they have completed 12 years of service. 4. The respondent is therefore, directed to implement the said circular in respect of the petitioners, on satisfying that they have completed 12 years of service. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. _______________ 10th August, 2004. Mrb That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on this Tuesday the Tenth day of August, Two thousand and Four. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Ranga Reddy Region, at Gowliguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad II Depot, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad I Depot, Gowliguda, Hyderabad. 4. Two CD Copies.