JUDGMENT :

A.V. Sesha Sai, J.

1. Heard Sri Solomon Raju Manchala, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the respondent, apart from perusing the material on record.

2. The challenge in the present Writ Appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, is to the order dated 29.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11362 of 2019. The respondent herein instituted the said Writ Petition, assailing the action of the respondents-appellants herein, in not granting two (02) Special Grade Increments to the writ petitioner-respondent herein on completion of 12 years and 20 years of service respectively by the writ petitioner-respondent herein and failure to credit 300 earned leave during the period from 2002 to 2012 to the leave account of the writ petitioner-respondent herein. The learned Single Judge, by way of the order impugned in the present Writ Appeal, allowed the Writ Petition, with a direction to the respondents-appellants herein to sanction Special Grade Increments to the writ petitioner-respondent herein and re-fix the pay of the writ petitioner-respondent herein and to pay the incremental arrears, if any, under the Special Grade with interest @ 12% per annum, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

3. According to the learned counsel for the writ appellants, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is highly erroneous, contrary to law and also to the Circular instructions issued by the appellant-Corporation vide Circular No.PD-04/2011, dated 12.01.2011. In elaboration, it is contended by the learned counsel that in order to get eligibility under the aforesaid Circular issued by the appellant-Corporation, one must have active service in the Organization. It is further submitted that right from the year 2002 till the writ petitioner-respondent herein was reinstated into service in the year 2012, the writ petitioner-respondent herein was out of service, as such the said period, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be regarded as active service spent on duty. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the learned Single Judge did not assign any reasons for award of interest @ 12% per annum.

4. On the contrary, Sri M. Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent herein, strongly resisting the Writ Appeal, contends that there is absolutely no illegality nor there exists any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and in the absence of the same, the questioned order is not amenable to any correction under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that in view of the settled law as laid down by the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of M.D. Rahamatullah Vs. Depot Manager, APSRTC, 1999 (4) ALT 515 the contentions that are sought to be pressed into service by the learned counsel for the respondents-appellants herein, deserve no consideration.

5. In the above background, now the issues that emerge for consideration of this Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent are as follows :

1. Whether the order passed by the learned Single Judge which is impugned in the present Writ Appeal is sustainable and tenable?

2. Whether the questioned order warrants any interference of this Court?

6. The information available before this Court discloses that the writ petitioner-respondent herein joined in the service of the appellant-Corporation initially as a Cleaner on 21.11.1997 and worked in the said capacity till 22.08.2022. It is also not in dispute that on certain allegations, he was suspended from service on 22.08.2002 and after holding a detailed enquiry, the services of the writ petitioner-respondent herein were dispensed with. After unsuccessfully challenging the said order of removal dated 26.12.2002 in I.D.No.2 of 2004 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, the writ petitioner-respondent herein approached this Court by way of fili