IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 10672 of 2000 Between: N.Narayana Murthy, E.456213, S/o.Bangaraiah, R/o.R.R.V.Puram, Gopalapatnam Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam Region, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, A.P.R.T.C., O/o.R.M. Visakhapatnam. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Simhachalam Depot, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District. 4 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Gajuwaka Depot, Visakhapatnam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent herein in denying and imposing the punishment of different of annual increments for a period of two years with cumulative effect vide Proc.No.PA/62(18)/92-SML, dt:29.5.92 which was confirmed by the appellate authority and as well as the review authority vide proc.No.PA/19(38)/96-VSK(U), dt:27.8.96 and Proc.No.Steno/19(4)/97-RM-VSP, dt:23.8.99 and respectively as illegal, unjust, nonest in law as the punishment was imposed without there being any allegation of misappropriation and as such the same is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential direction to pay the arrears of deferred increments from 29-5-92 forthwith and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER Learned counsel on either side fairly conceded that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by a Judgment of this Court rendered in Harijana Chinna Narasimhulu and others vs. Harijana Estheramma[1]. Accordingly, the writ petition is also disposed of and the punishment of stoppage of increment imposed shall be treated, as the one without cumulative effect. Further, the petitioner shall not be entitled for any monetary benefit, up to the date of this order, on account of modification of the punishment. __________ 27.2.2008 rkk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam Region, Visakhapatnam. 2 The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, A.P.R.T.C., O/o.R.M. Visakhapatnam. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Simhachalam Depot, Simhachalam, Visakhapatnam District. 4 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Gajuwaka Depot, Visakhapatnam District. 5. 2CD copies [1] 2005 (6) ALD 245