IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 5171 of 2008 Between: M.K.Hari, S/o.Tulsiram, APSRTC,Hyderabad-1 Bus Depot, Gowliguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager,APSRTC, Rangareddy Region, Imlibum,Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager,APSRTC, Hyderabad-I Bus Depot, Gowliguda, 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 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 allowing the 12 years Special Grade/Stagnation Increment to the petitioner by counting the interregnum period as bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, discriminatory and contrary to the judgments of this Court consequently direct the respondents to effect the 12 years Special Grade/Stagnation increment to the petitioner with effect from his completion of 12 years of service from his initial appointment by counting his out of employment period i.e. from the date of removal to date of reinstatement (17-05-1985 to 01-08-1990). Counsel for the Petitioner: M R.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a Conductor in A.P.S.R.T.C. He was removed from service by the Depot Manager, Tandur, vide orders, dated 17.05.1985. After exhausting the departmental remedies, the petitioner approached the Labour Court, Godavarikhani and the dispute was taken up as I.D.No.27 of 1990. Through its award, dated 23.04.1990, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but denied the arrears. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated into service. His grievance is that the respondents denied him the benefit of stagnation increment on completion of twelve years of service. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner was reinstated into service, in pursuance of the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.27 of 1990. While extending the benefit of stagnation increment, the respondents treated as though the petitioner was not in service for the period between the date of order of removal and the date of reinstatement. Such course would have been permissible, if only the Labour Court did not grant the relief of continuity of service. Once it is evident that the Labour Court granted the benefit of continuity of service while directing reinstatement of the petitioner, the respondents cannot omit the said period for computation of the service. In fact, an identical question arose for consideration before this Court in W.P.No.3822 of 2005 and it was held that the view taken by the respondents cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to take the period from the date of order of removal i.e.17.05.1985 to the date of reinstatement of the petitioner, for the purpose of extending the benefit of stagnation increment. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ 13.03.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}