High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or directions more in the nature of Writ of l\,4andamus, directing the Respondents herein to a) to refix the pay the petitioner by allowing all increments from the date of suspension to date of reinstatement and pay arrears from the date of reinstatement, b) to restore the deferred two annual increments after completion of punishment period and refix the petitioner pay and pay arrears with the calculation sheets and pay particulars, and pass such other order orders in the interest of justice as otherwise the petitioner may suffer rrreparable loss and hardship l.A. NO: 1 OF 2007(WPMP. NO: 27682 oF 2007) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent herein to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petrtioner representation dated 15-2-2O07 as per law. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.GOVINOA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS, SC FOR TSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAXA WRIT PETITION No. 2 1339 0F 2(x)7 ORDER: Petitioner claiming to be working as C':nductor in the State-orrnecl Road Transport Corporation at Karimnagar Depo[, at tht'relcvant point of time, was removed liom service by order datccl 2O.02 1991 by the Depot Manager, Karimnagar on the allcgittion o[ cash and ticket irregularities Questioning the removal orrler, pctitioner is stated to have raised I'D'No' 126 of 199 I u'ltt'rein the Labour Court, Godavarikh ani passed Award datt'<i 03.03. I997 clirecting reinstatement with continuity o[ servicc :ln(l aItcndal]t benefits in respect of incrrlments only ancl u ithout back u'ztgcs rvhile withholding two in<:rements by wav o[ penirltr. No irppr:al u'as filed by respondent rnanagement ancl pursurrrrr to tht said Au'ard, petitioner is stated to have b('cn r('insl,'l (l rtll,, s( rvicc in Juty 1997. lr ls slitl('d, pursuant to the Award, respondenls shall rt l'ix tltc prn Irr' :rllo',r'ing all benefrts grarlted by the Labour (lotrrr ittt:lutling notional increments from the date o[ G 2 suspension to the date of reinstatement i.e. from O2.l l. 1990 to July 1997 but his pay was not re-fixed by alrowing the benefirs. It is also stated that the Labour Court denied two annual increments by way of penalty and the same was complied with by the Corporation, but after completion of two years, the deferred increments were not restored. According to learned counsel for petitioner Sri p. Govinda Rajulu, the action o[ respondents in not restoring the withheld increments arter completion of punishment period is ilregar. It is submitrcd rhar petrtioner made Application dated lS.O2.2OOz before rhc 2,)(t rcspondent but no action was taken thereon. Hence, learned counsel seeks to direct respondents to re,fix the pa1, of petitioncr by allowing all increments from the dzrtc ol- strspension to date of reinstatement and pay arrears lrom thc clate of reinstatement, restore the deferred tu.o ernnual rncremcr)ts after completion of punishment periocr anci rer.ix 1;ctitioncr's pay and pay arrears with all calculation sheets zlrtd Jrnv particul;rrs. r L i 1

2. Learned Standing Counsel Sri Gaddrrm Srinivas submits that Corporation implemented the Award oi the Labour Court dated 15.07 -1997 and reinstated petitioner into service uide order clated 23-O7.1997. As regards the other part of the direction is concerned, it is submitted that petitioner-'s allegation that withoul re-hxing his pay, allowing notional increments from the date of suspension to rcinsLatement is not true and correct. His pay w:rs revisecl in the pay scale allowing notional increments benefits as u ndcr: " Notional ol 02.l(x)2 Pa] increased to Rs.1o35/- to Rs.lOTO/ Notion al in th('sc:rle ot par Rs. I O35- I8lO

01.02.1993 Pav increased lo Rs. I 105/ Notional O1.0.1.1993 RPS ().1 lr\lliou to Rs. t865/-ln the sca e of Rs. 1645- 3155 Notional Ol.O2.l()().1 Par rncrcast d to Rs. 192O/ Notional O1.02. 1995 ['ar iIrcrt;rs|cl to Rs. t975/- Notional O1.02.l()96 Par tttcrr';tst'tl to Rs 2030/- Notional O 1.02. I ()99; l'}.r\ rrrlr r'.rsctl to Rs 2085/ " l,carnccl Stirrrrlirrg Counsel submitted tl: at the order of the Laborrr Corrrt rs to r,r ithhold t\t'o increments of petitioner by way of pcnaltr': u ithholdrng o[ tu'o increments is l)ermanent. I I Y I I t \ i ; i 4

3. In view of [he clear and categorical submission of learned Standing Counsel that petitioner's pay was revised in the pay scale allowing notional increments benefits, as stated in the counter, and also in view of the submission that withholding of trvo incremcnts is permanent as it was imposed by way of penalty, this Court is not in a posiLion to accept the contention that rvithholcl ing of two increments is not permanent and they are to be rcstored. The Writ Petition is therefore, liable to bc dismissec[-

4. CoSTS-

8. Thc Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if an-1' sh:ill stancl c krsecl. //TRUE COPY// SD/.V.KAVITHA STANT REGISTRAR S SECTION OFFICER One CC to SR I P GOVINDA RAJULU' Advocate o UC] One CC to SRicnoonu sRlNlvAS' SC FOR Two CD CoPtes c {oP UC] 1 2 3 PSK. GPJ I HIGH COURT DATED:051031202i ORDER WP.No.21339 of 2007 t 'rH SiA rA: Q c r) z a .a" $E luN m6 t Or.- ,-r( 1l -'::-? DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ v t I