R.Raja Reddy v. The APSRTC

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Writ Petition No.1633 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner challenges the action of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transportation Corporation (‘APSRTC’, for brevity) in not adding notional increments for his ‘out of service’ period and not paying him the pay scale attached to the post of Driver, after he was taken back on duty on

07.03.2000. The same is said to be illegal and contrary to the Award dated

01.03.1997 in I.D.No.51 of 1994 on the file of the Labour Court – II, Hyderabad. The petitioner seeks a consequential direction to the respondent organization to re-fix his pay by adding the notional increments for his ‘out of service’ period and to pay him the Driver’s scale along with consequential benefits. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was engaged as a Driver by the APSRTC on 09.07.1987 and his services were regularized with effect from 01.07.1988. He was removed from service on 06.01.1992, which was the subject matter of challenge in I.D.No.51 of 1994 before the Labour Court – II, Hyderabad. By Award dated 01.03.1997, the Labour Court directed the APSRTC to reinstate the petitioner into service with all benefits like continuity of service, etc., but without back-wages. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 26.02.1998. It appears that APSRTC found the petitioner medically unfit to be a Driver and compulsorily retired him from service under its proceedings dated 22.07.1999.

The petitioner challenged the same in Writ Petition No.16343 of 1999 before this Court. By order dated 12.08.2008, a learned Judge of this Court allowed the Writ Petition holding that an employee of the APSRTC, if he suffers any disability during the course of the employment, would be protected by the Regulations of the Corporation and also by the provisions of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. The learned Judge took note of the fact that the petitioner had already been appointed as a Shramik (Cleaner) under the 10% quota of Medically Unfit Drivers and accordingly set aside the proceedings impugned in the Writ Petition. The learned Judge further directed the APSRTC to continue the petitioner as a Shramik till his age of superannuation, extending to him all the benefits of service applicable to the post of Driver (Class-AI).

The grievance of the petitioner in the present case was that he has not been given the benefit of notional increments for the period that he was out of service and that he was not extended the pay scale attached to the post of driver. Insofar as the relief of extending the benefit of the pay scale attached to the post of Driver is concerned, the same has already been granted by this Court in W.P.No.16343 of 1999, wherein, the learned Judge directed the APSRTC to extend to the petitioner, all the benefits of service applicable to post of Driver (Class-AI). It is not in dispute that this order has become final and Smt. B.G.Uma Devi, learned counsel for the APSRTC, fairly conceded that this order has infact, been implemented. Insofar as the benefit of notional increments for the period that the petitioner remained out of service is concerned, Smt. B.G.Uma Devi, learned counsel, placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.P.SRTC v Abdul Kareem[1]. The Apex Court reiterated therein the principle laid down by it in A.P.SRTC v S.Narsa Goud[2] that there is a difference between an order of reinstatement accompanied by a simple direction for continuity of service and an order where reinstatement is accompanied by a specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to the consequential benefits, which necessarily reinstatement.

However, in the present case, as pointed out by Sri Narshima Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner, the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad was very clear and unequivocal in the Award dated 01.03.1997 in I.D.No.51 of 1994, specifically directing the APSRTC to reinstate the petitioner into service with all benefits like continuity of service etc., Therefore, this would be an order falling within the latter type as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the afore-stated judgment. In such a situation, when the petitioner has been granted all benefits including continuity of service, there is no reason as to why he should be deprived of the notional increments for the period that he remained out of service. The Writ Petition is therefore allowed, directing the APSRTC to re-fix the petitioner’s salary by extending to him notional increments for the period that he remained out of service and pay him all consequential benefits pursuant to his reinstatement, except back wages. The APSRTC shall continue to extend to him all the benefits of service applicable to the post of Driver (Class – AI). In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. September 11, 2009 Bvv