I. LAXMA REDDYversusA.P.S.R.T.C. AND ORS.

                                I. LAXMA REDDY                                   A
                                        v.
                             A.P.S.R.T.C. AND ORS.

                             NOVEMBER 22, 2007
                                                                                 B
             [DR.ARIJITPASAYAT ANDP.SATHASIVAM,JJ.)


            Labour Law:
           Reinstatement-Claim for fixation of pay taking into C
      consideration notional increments-HELD: A simple order of
      reinstatement would not entitle the employee to claim the benefit of
      notional increments.

            The appellant filed a writ petition claiming that in view of the order D
      ofreinstatement in service passed by the Labour Court, his pay should
"'-   be fixed taking into consideration the notional increments, since for all
      practical purposes there would be continuity in service. The single Judge
      relying on the decision in Nageswara Rao 's case1, allowed the writ
      petition, but the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ E
      appeal filed by the department. Aggrieved, the employee filed the
      instant appeal.

            Dismissing the appeal, the Court

           HELD: In view of the decisions of the Court in S. Narsagoud and F
_,    Abdul Kareem* an order of reinstatement accompanied by a simple
      direction for continuity in service would not entitled the employee to
      claim benefit of increments unless specifically ordered to that effect.
                                                (Para 6 and 7) [435-A, B, CJ

           *APSRTCv. S. Narsagoud, [2003) 2 SCC 212 andA.P. State Road G
      Transport Corporation and Ors. v.Adbul Kareem, (2005) 6 SCC 36, relied
      on.

      I.APSRTC KhammamRegionandAnr. v. P. Nageswara Rao, (2001)4ALD568(DB)
                                        433                                      H
    434            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2007] 12 S.C.R.


A       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4511 of
    2005.

        From the Judgment and final Order dated 10.7.2003 of the High
    Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No.
    1092/2003.
B
          V. Sridhar Reddy and Abhijit Sengupta for the Appellant.
          D. Mahesh Babu for the Respondents.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
        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 'Corporation') and its
D 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's decision in APSRTC
E Khammam Region andAnr. 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
F view expressed by the Division Bench in P. Nageswara Rao 's case
  (supra) was dis-approved by this Court inA.P.SR. TC v. S Narsagoud,
  [2003) 2 sec 212 and, therefore, allowed the writ appeal directing
  dismissal of the writ petition.
        4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant
G 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.
H         5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported
           I. LAXMA REDDYv. A.P.S.R.T.C. [PASAYAT, J.]                   435


     the order passed by the High Court.                                         A
          6. The principles of law on the point are no more res integra. This
     Court in S. Narsagoud's case (supra) succinctly crystallized principle of
     law in para 9 of the judgment :
                "We find merit in the submission so made. There is a difference B
            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 be entitled to all the consequential benefits, which
            necessarily flow from reinstatement or accompanied by a specific C
            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 D
            specific direction in that regard and merely because he has been
            directed to be reinstated with the benefit of continuity in service."
          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 E
     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.
',
     RP.                                                  Appeal dismissed.