THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2574 of 2005 Dated: 04.06.2010 Between: K.A. Swamy. .. Petitioner. And The APSRTC rep. by its Managing Diretor, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, And others. .. Respondents. ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not computing the periodical increments in pursuance of the award dated 15.07.1988 passed by the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, in I.D.No.8 of 1988, as arbitrary and illegal and as such liable to be set aside. The petitioner was serving as Conductor in the respondent Corporation. He was removed from service through orders dated 27.07.1983 on the allegation of possessing excess amount of Rs.27.85 ps. in the bus cash and also possessing excess private cash of Rs.20/-. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed I.D.No.8 of 1988 before the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, and the same was disposed of by award dated 26.03.1988 ordering his reinstatement without backwages, but with continuity of service treating the period of suspension and the period subsequent to the dismissal order as dies- non. In pursuance of the award of the Labour Court, the petitioner was reinstated into service, but the order regarding the continuity of service was not implemented by the management. The petitioner made a representation on 17.12.1999, but it was not considered. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court through this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to add notional increments for out of service period and to fix his salary accordingly from the date of the reinstatement into service. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The principles of law on the point are no more res integra. This Court, in A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Narsagoud[1] held as under: “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 or to the benefit of the increments earned during the period of absence. The employee 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 was directed to be reinstated with the benefit of continuity in service.” The aforesaid principles have also been followed in A.P.S.R.T.C. vs. Abdul Kareem[2]. In the case on hand, the award passed by the Labour Court does not contain any specific directions that the petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits or to the benefit of the increments earned during the period of absence. It is only an order of reinstatement into service without backwages, but with continuity of service treating the period of suspension and the period subsequent to the dismissal as dies-non. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid decisions, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief prayed by him and therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 04.06.2010 v v [1] (2003) 2 SCC 212 [2] 2005(6) SCC 36