##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

WRIT PETITION No.19674 of 2013

04 FEBRUARY, 2026

Between:

M.Yadaiah

… Petitioner

AND

The Regional Manager, APSRTC,

Hyderabad City Region, Gowliguda,

Hyderabad, A.P. and another

…Respondents

: O R D E R :

Petitioner is aggrieved of not granting notional increments

from the date of his removal (suspension) to the date of

reinstatement i.e., from 09.10.2004 to 17.11.2009.

2. Heard Mr. P.Venkateshwer Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. A.Kedarnath, learned counsel representing

Mr. R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC appearing for

the respondents. Perused the record.

3. Petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the RTC in 1996

and his services were regularized with effect from 01.08.1997. On

the ground of cash and ticket irregularities, he was removed from

service vide proceedings, dated 11.04.2005. The appeal and review

2

preferred by him were rejected on 06.06.2005 and 22.03.2006,

respectively. Questioning the same, petitioner has approached the

Labour Court by filing I.D.No.77 of 2009. The said ID was allowed in

part setting aside the order of removal with a direction to reinstate

the petitioner with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but

without back wages. The case of the petitioner is that since he was

ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service, he should not

have been denied notional increments for the interregnum period.

Hence, the writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of

the erstwhile High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at

Hyderabad in T.Narayana v. Managing Director, APSRTC,

Hyderabad and others, 1998 (3) ALD 304, wherein, it was held that when the Labour

Court sets aside an order of removal and directs reinstatement with

continuity of service, though without back wages, the employee is

deemed to have been in service during the period he was kept out

of employment. Consequently, his pay is required to be computed

by taking into account the periodical increments he would have

earned had he been not removed from service. Relying on the said

judgment, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is entitled for

3

notional increments for the interregnum period. Hence, he prayed to

allow the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that

in the absence of a specific direction granting notional increments in

the Award passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner cannot claim

such benefit. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. As stated above, the petitioner was suspended from service

on 09.10.2004 and after conducting inquiry, he was removed from

service on 11.04.2005. The Labour Court, by Award dated

06.08.2009, set aside the order of removal dated 11.04.2005 and

directed for reinstatement with continuity of service and attendant

benefits, though without back wages. Since back wages are not

granted, the petitioner is not entitled for monetary benefits for the

interregnum period. However, he is entitled for notional increments

for such period.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed,

modifying the Award, dated 06.08.2009 to the effect that the

petitioner is entitled for notional increments from the date of removal

to the date of reinstatement i.e., from 11.04.2005 to 17.11.2009.

Accordingly, the respondents are directed to extend notional

4

increments to the petitioner for the said period and fix his pay within

three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

No costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

_____________________

JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J

Date: 04.02.2026

rev