THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A.No.2027 of 2004 JUDGMENT: (Per GM,J) Challenging the order dated 4-11-2004 passed in W.P.No.20259 of 2004, the present writ appeal has been preferred by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘Corporation’). The brief facts of the case are that respondent-writ petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the appellant-Corporation on 8-6-1978. Subsequently, he was removed from service on 28- 11-1995 on certain cash and ticket irregularities. Aggrieved by the same, he instituted I.D.No.100 of 1996 before the Labour Court, Hyderabad. The Labour Court vide its order dated 3-2-1999 directed the appellant-Corporation to reinstate the writ petitioner with continuity of service, but without back wages. Accordingly, he was reinstated into service. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the appellant-Corporation did not fix his pay by adding the notional increments. Hence, the writ petition. A learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 4-11-2004 allowed the writ petition by directing the appellant-Corporation to fix the pay of the writ petitioner by working out his notional increments for the period from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement within eight weeks from that date. Challenging the same, the appellant-Corporation filed the present writ appeal. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Corporation states that the issue involved in this writ appeal is squarely covered by a judgment of the Apex Court in “Andhra Prdesh State Road Transport Corporation v., S.Narsagoud[1],” wherein it is held as under: “We find merit in the submission so made. There is a difference between an order of reinstatement accompanied by a simple direction for continuity of service and a direction where reinstatement is accompanied by a specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, which necessarily flow from reinstatement or accompanied by a specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to the benefit of the increments earned during the period of absence. In our opinion, the employee after having been held guilty of unauthorized absence from duty cannot claim the benefit of increments notionally earned during the period of unauthorized absence in the absence of a specific direction in that regard and merely because he has been directed to be reinstated with the benefit of continuity in service.” Following the Law enunciated in the judgment of the Apex Court as stated supra, this appeal is liable to be allowed. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed in terms of the judgment referred to supra. No costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J __________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J rkk Dated: 11-10-2011 [1] (JT 2003(1) SC 179(para 9)