V.V.S.Rao, J.

1. The petitioner is working as a Clerk in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). Disciplinary enquiry was conducted by the third respondent. The Secretary, APSRTC, PF Trust, issued orders on 02.08.2006 reducing the pay of the petitioner by one incremental stage for a period of two years. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal to the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer (T&S), who rejected the same, on 09.10.2006. He, thereafter, filed O.A.No.17294 of 2008. The Registry of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereafter, Administrative Tribunal) raised an objection as to the maintainability in O.A.SR.No.17294 of 2008. By an order, dated 05.10.2010, the learned Administrative Tribunal upheld the office objection observing that the Government has not issued any notification vesting jurisdiction on the Administrative Tribunal to adjudicate the matters pertaining the service conditions of APSRTC employees. This order is assailed in the writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the A.P.Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (the Act, for brevity) was enacted, Section 2 excluded the members of naval, military or air forces or of any other armed forces of the Union, any person governed by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, officers or servants of the Supreme Court or High Courts or Courts subordinate thereto, and the person appointed to the secretarial staff of either House of Parliament or to the secretarial staff of any State Legislature or a House thereof or, in the case of a Union Territory having a Legislature, of that Legislature. By Central Act No.19 of 1986 with effect from 01.11.1985, Section 2 (b) was omitted and therefore, the statutory bar in so far as workmen are concerned, has now been removed. According to the counsel, after deletion of Section 2(b), every workman including an employee of APSRTC has a right to approach Administrative Tribunal constituted under Section 4(2) of the Act.

3. Government Pleader for Services-II and the standing counsel for APSRTC opposed the writ petition. They placed reliance on Ch.Raji Reddy v APSRTC 2003 (4) ALD 96 and Khader Sheriff v State of A.P 1997 (6) ALT 733 and submit that unless and until a notification is issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 15(2) of the Act, the learned Tribunal is not vested with the jurisdiction in relation to service matters of the employees/workmen of APSRTC.

4. Does an employee of APSRTC has a remedy under Section 19 of the Act to seek redressal in relation to any service matter? Our enquiry is limited to this short question. After giving anxious consideration, we are convinced that employees of APSRTC like the petitioner are not entitled to approach the Administrative Tribunal nor can it entertain original application from such an employee. The brief reasons are as follows.

5. As per Section 19 of the Act -“subject to the other provisions of this Act, a person aggrieved by any order pertaining to any matter within the jurisdiction of a Tribunal may make an application to the Tribunal for redressal of the grievance”. But, every grievance is not redressible by the Administrative Tribunal. It is only the grievance pertaining to the matter within the jurisdiction that can be agitated under Section 19 of the Act. This is again, however, subject to other provisions of the Act. The question to be addressed is whether the grievance of the petitioner pertaining to the reduction of pay by one incremental stage as an employee of APSRTC is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

6. ‘Service matter’ in relation to a person means, “all matters relating to the conditions of his service (i) in connection with the affairs of the Union; (ii) of a State; (iii) of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of Government of India; or (iv) ‘as the case may be’, of any corporation or society owned or controlled by the Government i