Judgment : 1. The petitioners in the present writ petition are mechanics working in respondents’ Corporation, i.e., Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). They have filed the present writ petition questioning the action of the respondent Corporation as illegal, unjust and arbitrary in not granting the selection grade scale stagnation increments to them on completion of 12 years of service. 2. Facts in brief, as pleaded by the petitioners, are that all the petitioners were appointed mechanics in Krishna Region in the year 1996, except the 5th petitioner, who was appointed in 1995. All the petitioners have completed 12 years of service. In course, of time, as the record reveals, the petitioners were transferred to Guntur Region, consequent to which, they were required to forego their seniority. In any event, despite foregoing their seniority, they are, contend the petitioners, entitled to the stagnation increments on completion of 12 years, which they did. Accordingly, the petitioners approached the respondent Corporation on 12.05.2009 and again in February, 2010 renewing their request for the grant of stagnation increments, but the same was denied by the respondent Corporation. 3. As a matter of service regulations, it is placed on record that the Corporation has introduced the special grade scales to the employees who have completed 12 years as per Regulation 12(3). As per the circular, n employee who puts in 12 years of service in the same category shall be placed on special grade service and that the selection grade will come into force for such of those employees who have completed 12 years or more years of service in the category. While fixing the pay in special grade, one additional notional increment in the existing grade is required to be given and then the fixation should take place in the appropriate stage in the special grade. Thus, irrespective of seniority in the Division level, the petitioners’ seniority shall be from the date of their appointment under the recruitment regulations. 4. In the light of the above statutory scheme, it is contended that the petitioners are entitled for selection grade in accordance with the memorandum of settlement entered into between the Corporation and the NMU union dated 21.04.1989. 4. In the light of the above statutory scheme, it is contended that the petitioners are entitled for selection grade in accordance with the memorandum of settlement entered into between the Corporation and the NMU union dated 21.04.1989. Conceding the aspect that their seniority for all other purposes would be reckoned from their transfer to Guntur Region, the petitioners have contended that insofar as reckoning of stagnation is concerned, it is from the date of their recruitment. It has also been placed on record that on one earlier occasion, this Court has held, per a Division Bench, that the stagnation allowance has nothing to do with region-wise seniority. Incidentally, the employees whose case was considered by the Division Bench were similarly placed as the present petitioners. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to have the stagnation allowance despite their inter-regional transfers. 5. On the part of the respondent Corporation, it has been contended by filing a counter affidavit that the petitioners on transfer to Guntur Region from Krishna Region have lost their seniority and are governed by Regulation 3(C) of the APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964, which is as follows: “If any employee is willing to relinquish the right of his seniority in the post held by him in the seniority unit in which he is working and is willing to join on transfer in another seniority unit at his request, it shall be treated as a first appointment for transferred employee for the purpose of seniority and he will become junior most in the seniority unit to which transferred on request. His seniority shall be reckoned from the date of his joining on transfer in the later seniority unit.” 6. It has been further contended that based on the said regulation, as per the memorandum of settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’), instructions were issued in Circular No.PD-30/2005 dated 04.06.2005 to allow the special grade to such of those employees to whom special grades were denied till 13.05.2005 only based on Circular Lr.No.P1/93(12)/87-PD dated 09.11.1989 duly considering the total service rendered in the same category, irrespective of inter-divisional/regional transfers on (sic. and) loss of seniority. As such, their pay shall be fixed notionally from the date of eligibility and the monetary benefit consequent on such pay fixation shall be paid w.e.f. 01.04.2005. and) loss of seniority. As such, their pay shall be fixed notionally from the date of eligibility and the monetary benefit consequent on such pay fixation shall be paid w.e.f. 01.04.2005. In the light of it, it is contended that the petitioners’ case for sanction of special grade, considering their service rendered in the same category, cannot be considered. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. 8. The simple issue that falls for consideration is whether on foregoing the seniority consequent upon inter-regional transfer, the petitioners are disentitled to the benefit of stagnation increment. The issue is no longer res integra, since a Division Bench of this Court has authoritatively held in The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Mahaboobnagar and another vs. Buchana and others (1) W.A.No.1301 of 2000, decided on 29-10-2002,that they are entitled to the benefit of stagnation increment. The ration laid down by the Division Bench may profitably be reproduced herein: “Therefore, simply because the petitioners went to new division by agreeing to forego the past service rendered in the parent divisions in the matter of fixation of seniority in the concerned category in the transferee division, it cannot be said that the petitioners have agreed to forego the past service for all practical purposes and for claiming each and every service benefit. Should it be noticed that the provision for stagnation increment could not be equated to a promotion in usual course promotion in the usual course is an ordinary event in the service life of an employee whereas the provision for stagnation increment is a special extraordinary measure granted by the management itself to mitigate the hardship experienced by the such of those employees in the same category, in the instant case, in the category of conductors grade II for a number of years. Such a benefit cannot be denied to the petitioners simply because at the time of their transfer to the new divisions they had agreed to forego their past service in the parent division in the matter of fixation of their seniority I the transferee division. Be that as it may, it is well settled that if two interpretations are possible on the same set of facts the Court should adopt the one which is beneficial to the workmen and not to the employer. Be that as it may, it is well settled that if two interpretations are possible on the same set of facts the Court should adopt the one which is beneficial to the workmen and not to the employer. The petitioners are industrial workmen and looking from that angle also the interpretation beneficial to the petitioners workmen should be adopted. We do not find any substantive ground to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. Writ appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.” 9. Having de regard to the above legal principle, it can safely be concluded that the petitioners are squarely covered by the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court. Without any further discussion, it may be concluded that given the binding nature of the precedent concerning the legal principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, the present writ petition is required to be disposed of acceding to the prayer sought by the petitioners. 10. In the above facts and circumstances, it is hereby declared that the action of the respondent Corporation in not granting the selection grade scale stagnation increments to the petitioners on their completion of 12 years of service as illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, the respondent Corporation is hereby directed to consider the case of the petitioners for the grant of selection grade scale stagnation increment and also to pay arrears from the date of their entitlement. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel to it, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.