IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15396 of 1999 Between: T. Ramulu, S/o Shivappa, R/o Tandur, Ranga Reddy District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad-20. 2 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Ranga Reddy Region, Imlibun Bus Station, Hyderabad-12. 3 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to call for the records from the respondents and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of 3rd respondent in procs.No.P2/255(1)/99-TDR, dt: 10-6-99 withholding the increments from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, discriminatory, and contrary to the Award passed by Hon'ble Labour Court, Hyderabad-I in I.D.No.228/88, dt: 25-9-91; and grant all consequential benefits with costs. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. A.K.J AYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for Respondents: MR. K. MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following: Order: The petitioner, who is working as Driver in the respondent-APSRTC, seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings dated 10-06-1999, issued by the third respondent, Depot Manager, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and a direction to the respondents for release of increments for the period from 01-11-1987 to 31-01-1992. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Driver in the APSRTC on 28-10-1979. In the year 1987, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him mainly on the ground that he was negligent in driving the bus and after conducting necessary enquiry, order dated 31-10-1987 was passed removing him from service. The petitioner questioned the said order of removal by raising an industrial dispute in I.D.No.228 228/88 on the file of the Labour Court, Hyderabad-I. The Labour Court, by its Award dated 25-09-1991, set aside the order of removal of the petitioner and directed the respondents herein to reinstate him into service with continuity of service, but without back wages. Consequent to the said Award, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 31-01-1992. However, as the petitioner was not granted increments from the period from 01-11-1987 to 31-01-1992, i.e. from the date of his removal from service till the date of his reinstatement, he made a representation for release of such increments. The third respondent, by the impugned order dated 10-06-1991, notified the petitioner that he is not entitled for grant of arrears of increments for the aforementioned period since he was not serving the Corporation during the said period, i.e. he was out of service. 3. It is submitted by Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, that as much as the Labour Court has ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service, as such, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to release all the increments for the period for which he was out of service. In support of the said submission, he relied on a judgment of this court in the case of T. Narayana V. Managing Director, APSRTC, Hyd. & Ors.. 4. In the aforesaid judgment, a learned single Judge of this court held that whenever an industrial court or any other court grants continuity of service to an employee, the effect of such grant is that the employee should be deemed to have been in service when he was out of employment. By recording such finding, a direction was issued to compute the periodical increments that would have been earned by the petitioner therein had he been in service during the period when he was out of employment and to fix his pay accordingly. 5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the APSRTC, supporting the impugned order, has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of APSRTC and another V. S. NarsaGoud, wherein, at para-9, it is held as under: “ We find merit in the submission so made. There is a difference between on 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 unauthorised absence from duty cannot claim the benefit of increments notionally earned during the period of unauthorised 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. 6. In the aforesaid judgment, in clear terms, it is held that merely because the benefit of continuity of service is given, the employee is not entitled for increments during the period for which he was out of service. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard supports the case of the respondents herein. Therefore, in view of the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents (2 supra), no direction can be issued to the respondents for release of increments for to the petitioner for the period from 01-11-1987 to 31-01-1992 as claimed by him. 7. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. ____________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. August 13, 2008 MRR