http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4511 of 2005

PETITIONER: I. Laxma Reddy

RESPONDENT: A.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/11/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a  Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the  writ appeal filed by the respondent-Andhra Pradesh State  Road Transport Corporation (in short the \021Corporation\022) and its  functionaries.  

2.      A writ petition was filed by the appellant claiming that  since an award was passed by the Labour Court directing his  re-instatement, his pay has to be fixed after taking into  consideration the notional increments. Learned Single Judge  relied on a Division Bench\022s decision in APSRTC Khammam  Region and Anr. v. P. Nageswara Rao (2001 (4) ALD 568 (DB)  and allowed the writ petition.  

3.      Present respondents filed a writ appeal before the High  Court questioning correctness of the judgment. The High  Court noticed that the view expressed by the Division Bench in  P. Nageswara Rao\022s case (supra)  was dis-approved by this  Court in A.P.S.R.T.C. v. S. Narsagoud (2003 (2) SCC 212) and,  therefore, allowed the writ appeal directing dismissal of the  writ petition.  

4.      In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the  appellant submitted that when an order of re-instatement is  passed for all practical purposes there will be continuity in  service and, when the re-instatement is done the pay has to be  fixed after taking into consideration the notional increments  which would have otherwise accrued.

5.      Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand  supported the order passed by the High Court.           6.      The principles of law on the point are no more res  integra. This Court in S. Narsagoud\022s case (supra) succinctly  crystallized principle of law in para 9 of the judgment :

       \023We find merit in the submission so  made. There is a difference between an order of  reinstatement accompanied by a simple  direction for continuity of service and a  direction where reinstatement is accompanied  by a specific direction that the employee shall

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

be entitled to all the consequential benefits,  which necessarily flow from reinstatement or   accompanied by a specific direction that the  employee shall be entitled to the benefit of the  increments earned during the period of  absence. In our opinion, the employee after  having been held guilty of unauthorized  absence from duty cannot claim the benefit of  increments notionally earned during the period  of unauthorized absence in the absence of a  specific direction in that regard and merely  because he has been directed to be reinstated  with the benefit of continuity in service.\024  

7.      The position was re-iterated in A.P. State Road Transport  Corporation and Ors. v. Abdul Kareem (2005 (6) SCC 36). In  view of what has been stated by this Court in S. Narsagoud  and Abdul Kareem cases (supra), there is no merit in this  appeal which is accordingly dismissed.  There will be no order  as to costs.