HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 23641 OF 2011

O R D E R :

The action of respondents in not releasing the increments due in the months of August 2009, August 2010 and August 2011 is questioned in this Writ Petition.

2. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, petitioner (employee) died and his wife Smt. Puri was brought on record as his legal representative, vide order dated 28.06.2023 in I.A.No. 1 of 2023.

3. The case of employee is that he joined the service of Corporation as driver on 01.02.1996 and his services were regularized with effect from 01.01.1997. He was, however, suspended from service on 27.05.2006 which resulted in his removal on 22.08.2006 for causing fatal accident. After availing the remedies of Appeal and Revision unsuccessfully, he raised a dispute (I.D.No. 91 of 2006) before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. Through the Award dated 07.11.2007, the Corporation was directed to reinstate the employee with continuity of service, all attendant benefits and 50% backwages. Pursuant thereto, he was reinstated on 03.02.2008. Aggrieved by the said Award, the Corporation preferred Writ Petition No. 17985 of 2008, wherein this Court granted stay of the Award except reinstatement and the same was made absolute. Now the complaint of the employee is that he earned increment on completion of each year service which are due by August, 2009, August, 2010 and August 2011 but the same were not released on the ground that Writ Petition is pending. He is stated to have made representation to the 2nd respondent requesting that pendency of Writ Petition has nothing to do with releasing annual increments. It is his grievance that due to non-release of increments, he was being put to loss of Rs.500/- cumulatively Rs.700/- to Rs.800/- every month apart from losing proportionately in claiming the overtime allowances.

4. On behalf of the Corporation, it is stated in their counter that petitioner while working as driver involved in an accident, he was suspended from service on 17.05.2002, later, suspension was raised and punishment of deferment of his annual increments for two years was imposed. It is stated that again for causing fatal accident, his annual increment was deferred for a period of one year on 03.06.2006. He was placed under suspension on 27.05.2006 and was removed from service on 22.08.2006. However, he was reinstated as per the Award of Labour Court in I.D.No. 91 of 2006 and he reported to duty at Bodhan Depot on 18.02.2008. Hence, he is eligible for annual increment with effect from 18.03.2010. Accordingly, the annual increments of petitioner due for March 2010 and March 2011 are to be sent for pre-audit and after getting approval from audit, his annual increments would be paid.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri V. Narsimha Goud submits that the action of the Corporation is nothing but taking vengence against the employee for approaching the Court of law, hence, it amounts to unfair labour practice on the part of the respondent Corporation.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for Corporation Sri Thoom Srinivas reiterating the averments in the counter, submits that Writ Petition may be dismissed.

7. It is the specific case of respondent Corporation that petitioner’s annual increment was deferred for a period of one year vide order dated 03.06.2006 in relation to other charge. The same is not challenged in this Writ Petition. Although petitioner is seeking increments for August 2009, August 2010 and August 2011, since he was placed under suspension vide order dated 27.05.2006 and further removed from service on 22.08.2006, deferment of one increment vide order dated 03.06.2006 will come into effect after reinstatement ie. after the Labour Court passed the Award. As such, implementation of deferment of one increment will have effect on the increment pertains to 2009, thus, petitioner is not entitled for increment for the said period. With regard to the other increments i.e 2010 and 2011 are concerned, as per