Telangana High Court
WP/24425/2004 of G.J.Abraham, E-89345,Conductor, Vs The Regional Manager, on 28 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 24425 of 2004 Between: G.J. Abraham, E-89345, Conductor, S/o.Jangaiah, 48 years, Achampet
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO : 24425 of 2004
Between:
G.J. Abraham, E-89345, Conductor,
S/o.Jangaiah, 48 years,
Achampet Depot, R/o.Achampet, Mahaboobnagar Dist.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1. The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.
Mahaboobnagar.
2. The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Achampet Depot, Achampet.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamusdeclaring the action of the respondents herein in not granting the selection gradescale stagnation increments to the petitioner on completion of 12 years service isillegal, unjust and arbitrary, contrary to the well-established principles of law and assuch set aside the same by directing the respondents herein to add the stagnationincrement to the petitioners on completion of 12 years of service irrespective of histransfer from the date of initial appointment and to pay the arrears by refixing the payof the petitioner forthwith.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.M.SUBHAN
Counsel for the Respondent s: MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY
The Court made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER:
The petitioner is working as Conductor in the respondents-Corporation. He contends that he has been working continuously formore than 12 years. Therefore, he is entitled to get stagnationincrements on completion of 12 years of service. The petitionerfurther contends that though he made representations for release ofstagnation increments, his request was not considered. Thepetitioner therefore approached this Court seeking for declaration thathe is entitled to stagnation increments on completion of 12 years ofservice, which he had already completed long prior to the date of the writ petition. A similar question arose for consideration inW.P.No.5726 of 2000 and it was also considered in W.A.No.1301 of2000 by a Division Bench of this Court which was preferred againstthe order in the above writ petition and the Division Bench held thatthe employees, who have completed 12 years of service in the samecategory irrespective of their transfers are entitled to stagnationincrements and accordingly directed to consider the cases of thepetitioners in the W.P.No.5726 of 2000.
In the light of the circumstances explained by the petitioner and in thelight of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the aboveWrit Appeal, the respondents are directed to examine whether thepetitioner completed the period of 12 years in the same categoryirrespective of his transfer and on satisfying that he completed 12years of service, extend him the benefit of the stagnation increment and pass appropriate orders within eight weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
_______________
(K.C. BHANU, J.)
28[th] December, 2004.
bcj
To
1. The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.
Mahaboobnagar.
2. The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Achampet Depot, Achampet.
3. Two C.D. copies