Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 8 (AP)

P. N. Reddy v. Managing Director, APSRTC, Hyd.

2001-01-16

GODA RAGHURAM

body2001
GODA RAGHURAM, J. ( 1 ) HEARD both sides. The writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission with the consent of both parties. ( 2 ) THE petitioner, aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in paying him salary by computing the notional increments of his past service, seeks an appropriate direction to the respondents in this behalf. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was first appointed as Conductor of the respondent-Corporation in April, 1977 and posted to work at khammam. Subsequently he was transferred to Kothagudem Depot. While working as a conductor, on 18-6-1982 the bus in which he was serving, was subjected to a check and on alleged irregularities a departmental enquiry was initiated. A charge-sheet was issued on 26-6-1982 and after due process of inquiry the petitioner was visited with the penalty of removal from service, on 21-10-1982. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute ID no. 207 of 1986 before the Labour Court, warangal. ID No. 207 of 1986 was disposed of upholding the penalty imposed on the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner instituted WP No. 4116 of 1988 before this court. The said writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 6-8-1992 setting aside the order of removal from service and directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service but without back wages. This Court further directed that the petitioner shall have the benefit of past service for the purpose of prospective promotion and terminal benefits but shall not be entitled to back wages and attendant benefits. ( 4 ) PURSUANT to the orders of this Court, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 27-6-1993. He thereafter preferred WA no. 756 of 1997, aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge denying him back wages and attendant benefits. The writ appeal was, however, withdrawn on 15-7-1997. ( 5 ) AFTER reinstatement into service the petitioner made representation for fixing of his pay by adding the notional increments from the date of his initial appointment on a periodical basis. The petitioner contended that his claim was orally rejected and no orders have been passed granting him the said benefit. He thereafter made representations to the 2nd respondent on 15-2-1995 and 14-1-1996 but without any response. The petitioner contended that his claim was orally rejected and no orders have been passed granting him the said benefit. He thereafter made representations to the 2nd respondent on 15-2-1995 and 14-1-1996 but without any response. He made yet another representation to the 2nd respondent seeking recomputation of his current salary on the basis of notional increments due to him pursuant to the orders of this Court. Since no action has been taken by the respondents, the petitioner is before this court. ( 6 ) THE Law Officer of the respondent- corporation has filed a counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner was reinstated with a condition that he is not entitled to back wages and attendant benefits, pursuant to the orders of this Court and that since he was not in service for the period from the date of his removal to the date of reinstatement, he is not entitled to fixation of his salary after taking into account the notional increments for the period he was out of service. ( 7 ) THE contention of the respondents is seen to be misconceived. The order of this Court dated 6-8-1992 in WP No. 4116 of 1988 directed the petitioner s reinstatement into service with the benefit of past service for the purpose of prospective promotion and other terminal benefits but that he shall not be entitled to back wages and attendant benefits. A similar fact situation came to be considered by this Court in T. Narayana v. Managing Director, apsrtc, Hyderabad, 1998 (3) ALD 304 . This Court held that when the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of continuity of service, though without the benefit of back wages, he would be entitled to fixation of salary on reinstatement duly computing notional increments he would have drawn had he been continued in actual service. On a parity of reasoning the ratio declared by this Court in the above judgment is applicable to the case of the petitioner and the petitioner would thus be entitled to the relief claimed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to re-fix the pay of the petitioner duly taking into account the notional increments he would have drawn during the period he was out of service i. e. , from 21-10-1982 to 21-8-1993. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to re-fix the pay of the petitioner duly taking into account the notional increments he would have drawn during the period he was out of service i. e. , from 21-10-1982 to 21-8-1993. The petitioner would be entitled to the payment of the difference in wages between what have been actually paid on reinstatement and what are due to him on re-fixation of his pay as ordained above, from the date of reinstatement. This difference in wages shall be paid to the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.