S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) ALL these matters involving common question of law are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, the fact is being noticed from Writ Appeal No. 1189 of 2000.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated July 18, 2000 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ petition No. 5802 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the 1st respondent herein was allowed. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is a short one. The respondent was serving as a Conductor under the appellant-Corporation. He was removed from service in relation whereto he filed an application before the Labour Court. An award was passed by the Labour Court directing his reinstatement without backwages. Although he was reinstated in service his pay was not fixed taking into consideration the notional increments whereafter the writ petition was filed.

( 3 ) THE learned single Judge having (regard to the various decisions of the Court in n. Raja Reddy v. Vice Chairman and Managing director, APSRTC Hyderabad, 1998 (2) ALD 317, T. Narayana v. Managing Director, apsrtc, Hyderabad, 1998 (3) ALD 304, The vice-Chairman and Managing Director, apsrtc, Hyderabad v. N. Raja Reddy, 1997 (2) An. WR 69, directed: following the said decisions, writ petition is to be allowed. However, the learned standing counsel for the Corporation submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for arrears and he is entitled for arrears only from the date of filing the writ petition. This issue was also considered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 28596 of 1997 dated June 20, 2000 and it was held that he is entitled for arrears from the date of award. Writ petition is therefore allowed and consequently there shall be a direction to the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner taking into account the notional increments from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement without reference to the proceedings passed by the Depot Manager of siddipet dated April 13, 2000. This exercise shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

( 4 ) MR. K. Harinath, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the learned single Judge was wrong in passing the impugned judgment inasmuch as it has not been directed specifically in the award of the Labour Court that such notional increments should be counted. In support of the aforementioned contentions strong reliance has been placed on Basudeo Tiwary v. Sido Kanhu university AIR 1998 SC 3261 : 1998 (8) SCC 194 : 1999-I-LLJ-200, State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey 2001-II-LLJ- 1660 (SC), mr. Harinath would contend that having regard to the delay and laches on the part of the respondent, the learned single Judge ought not to have exercised his discretionary jurisdiction. Reliance in this connection has been placed on m. R. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 669 : 1995 (5) SCC 628 and Balbir Singh v. Punjab Roadways, 2000-I-LLJ-476.

( 5 ) MS. Nanda R. Rao the learned counsel appearing in some of the writ appeals inter alia submitted that different orders have been passed in different cases and thus each case has to be considered on its own merit. The learned counsel pointed out that on the ground of delay and laches alone several Courts have not granted the relief. Reliance in this connection has been made on APSRTC, Khammam District v. S. Satyanarayana Rao, 2000 (2) ALD 627, apsrtc, Mushirabad, Hyderabad and another v. Chandramouli, 2000 (4) ALD 584. According to the learned counsel the principles of limitation under the Limitation Act should be made applicable and in support of the said contention reliance has been placed on 1997 (11) SCC 394, the Municipal Council, ahmednagar and another v. Shah Hyder Beig and others, AIR 2000 SC 671 : 2000 (2) SCC 48; State of Maharashtra v. Digambar AIR 1995 SC 1991 : 1995 (4) SCC 683. The learned counsel has also placed strong

Click Here to Read the rest of this document