V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, who is working as conductor in respondent No. 1-Depot, is seeking a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction and to quash or set aside Circular/memo No. P1/93 (12)/87-PD, dated 11-7-1990 and consequential direction to respondent No. 1 to sanction Special Grade with effect from 21-1-1993 together with the arrears.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to this writ petition in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as a conductor on 21-1-1981. He was removed from service on 6-1-1987 on the ground of some irregularities allegedly committed by him in issuing tickets. He challenged the order of removal before the concerned Labour Court where an award was passed in ID No. 215 of 1989 dated 19-8-1989 directing his reinstatement into service forthwith with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. Thus he completed twelve years of service as on 21-1-1993 and became eligible for Special Grade. Thereupon he filed a representation on 20-11-1995 before respondent No. 2 for sanction of the same. He also approached respondent No. 1. He has been orally informed that he was not entitled for Special Grade in view of the impugned Circular dated 11-7-1990. Thereupon, the petitioner filed WP No. 13810 of 1996 for a direction to sanction stagnation increments counting twelve years of service on the basis of continuation of service with effect from 21-1-1991 as per the Award of the Labour Court. The respondents resisted the petition on the ground that he is not entitled for the same as per the impugned Circular. The petitioner specifically asserted that he had no knowledge of the impugned Circular till the counter is filed in WP No. 13810 of 1996 and hence he could not challenge the same earlier. It is now contended that the Circular is bad in law and is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

( 3 ) THE respondents filed a common counter. It is stated that the petitioner would be entitled for stagnation increments only on completion of twelve years of active service as per the guidelines in the impugned Memorandum. Tracing the history of sanction of stagnation increments, it is stated that pursuant to an agreement of the Management with the Unions under Section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, Circular No. PD/65/1989 dated 3-6-1989 was issued extending the benefit of stagnation increments to employees who had no chance of promotion even after working for long period of twelve years, but the above circular is not applicable to persons who are deemed to be in service by virtue of Award of the Labour Court and that position has been clarified by the impugned Memorandum. Thus, it is contended that the writ petition is devoid of merits.

( 4 ) HEARD both sides.

( 5 ) SRI Sadu Rajeswar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that there is no distinction between active service and notional service for the purpose of reckoning service for sanction of Special Grade. Adverting to the petitioner s case he contended that he has been directed to be reinstated by the Labour Court with continuity of service and hence he shall be deemed to be in service through out. He relied on a judgment of this Court in T. Narayana v. Managing Director, APSRTC, Hyderabad, 1998 (3) ALD 304, which is confirmed in WA No. 1269 of 1998 dated 13-8-1998. He also placed strong reliance on a judgment of a Division Bench in WA No. 2164 of 1998 dated 21-12-1998.

( 6 ) ON the other hand, Smt. Nanda Ramachandra Rao, learned Standing Counsel for A. P. S. R. T. C. contended that in the above cited case fixation of pay on the date of reinstatement by taking into account notional increments which the employee would have earned during the period of out of employment was considered whereas the issue raised in this case is different so much so that the legality of the Circular issued by the Corporation for taking into account only active service for the purpose of sancti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document