G SRINIVAS Vs. APSRTC ADILABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not adding notional increments, for the period the petitioner was out of service i.e. from 3-11-1989 to 21-11-1991 as arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to refix the pay of the petitioner by allowing the increments for the said period with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner while working under the control of the Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Manchiryal was removed from service with effect from 24-1-1990 after conducting a detailed enquiry into the misconduct alleged against him. Being aggrieved by the removal order, he had raised a dispute in I.D. No.209 of 1990 before the Labour Court, Godavarikhani, Karimnagar District. The Labour Court after elaborate consideration of the matter held: ".....The explanation offered by the petitioner coupled with the fact that he did not close the SR against the stage No.1 clearly goes to show that the petitioner is not having any mala fide or dishonest intention except there being some dereliction of duty on his part to attend to these passengers also as early as they boarded the bus for which he has to be, of course, punished suitably, but not by awarding the extreme punishment of removing the petitioner from service once for all which is neither just nor proper-under the facts and circumstances present in this case. The petitioner is without job from the date of his removal from service i.e., 21-4-1990. Therefore, denial of back wages and denial of all attendant benefits will be sufficient punishment for the petitioner. Under those circumstances and in view of my discussion, I hereby set aside the orders of removal passed by the respondent- management against the petitioner on 21-4-1990 under Ex.M16 and I hereby direct the respondent-management to reinstate the petitioner into service with nominal continuity of service, but without any attendant benefits and the petitioner is also not entitled to any back wages and the petitioner is entitled to his salary from the date of publication of this Award. I decide points 1 and 2 accordingly, and the award is passed as aforesaid".

(3.) In obedience to the Award passed by the Labour Court, the respondent- management had reinstated the petitioner into service on 22-11-1991. After more than 11 years of his reinstatement, the petitioner filed the present writ petition complaining that, compared to his colleagues, he is put on a scale short of three incremental stages, and in spite of requesting the 2nd respondent to consider his case, for fixing his pay on par with his colleagues, it was not being considered. Further, he states that he must be deemed to be in service in view of the award of the Labour Court and he cannot be denied increments for the period he was out of service i.e., from 3-11-1989 and 21-11-1991 on the ground that he was not granted attendant benefits in the award passed by the Labour Court. Therefore, the action of the management in denying the increments/notional increments was not correct. He also submits that the issue as to granting of notional increments on reinstatement under an Award is automatic and is no more res Integra and the issue is covered by the Judgment of this Court reported in APSRTC Khammam Region, Khammam v. P.Nageswara Rao, 2001 (4) ALD 568 (DB). The petitioner submits that the appeal filed before the apex Court against the said Judgment ended in dismissal by confirming the said Judgment. Therefore, he is entitled for increments for the period from 3-11-1989 to 21-11-1991.