IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 2514 of 2005 Between: N.R.K. Murthy .... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC rep., by its Regional Manager, Krishna Region at Vijayawada and another. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO :2514 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner, a conductor in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the APSRTC’), assails its action in not giving him the benefit of periodical increments pursuant to the Award dated 20.9.2000 passed by the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D.No.281 of 1997 and seeks a consequential direction to the APSRTC to compute the increments payable for the period that he remained out of service i.e., from 21.10.1991 to 1.3.2001; to fix his wages accordingly and to pay the arrears. The petitioner was appointed as a conductor in the APSRTC in the year 1972. He was removed from service by order dated 21.10.1991 pursuant to certain cash and ticket irregularities held proved against him. His removal from service was the subject matter of I.D.No.281 of 1997 before the Labour Court, Guntur. By its Award dated 20.9.2000, the Labour Court set aside the order of removal dated 21.10.1991 and directed the APSRTC to reinstate the petitioner in service without backwages but with continuity of service. It is the contention of the petitioner that as he was given the benefit of continuity of service, he is deemed to be in service during the period that he actually remained out of service and accordingly, he would be entitled to the increments that fell due during the said period. The APSRTC contests the claim of the petitioner. It is pointed out in the counter affidavit of the APSRTC that the Award dated 20.9.2000 of the Labour Court, Guntur did not grant ‘attendant benefits’ to the petitioner and accordingly, he was denied the increments which fell due during the period that he remained out of service. The APSRTC, therefore, denied the entitlement of the petitioner to claim notional increments during the said period. The issue is no longer res integra in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in A.P.S.R.T.C AND ANOTHER V. S. NARSA GOUD[1], wherein the Supreme Court held that unless the Labour Court grants the relief of all consequential benefits, it is not open to the workman to claim notional increments that fell due during the period that he remained out of service. Merely because the workman has been granted the relief of continuity of service, he cannot claim attendant benefits, unless expressly stated so by the Labour Court. It is not in dispute that the petitioner in the present case was only granted the relief of continuity of service and was not extended consequential or attendant benefits. In that view of the matter, the case is squarely covered by the aforestated judgment of the Supreme Court and does not warrant interference by this Court. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. ______________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar Dated:29.1.2010 Nn. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 2514 of 2005 29.1.2010 [1] (2003)2 SCC 212