WP/4055/2000 of D.Subba RAo, Vs The A.P.S.R.T.C., on 26 December 2005

Order:

Petitioners, by this writ petition, seek Mandamus declaring the action of therespondents in not fixing their pay, duly adding additional increments for graduationqualification, as illegal and unjust, and for a consequential direction to RespondentNo.3 to fix their pay, duly adding additional increments for graduation qualification,forthwith.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counselappearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation.

3. Petitioner No.1, a Conductor in the respondent-Corporation states that hisservices were regularized with effect from 01-08-1991, and after regularization, heclaims to have completed B.A. course in April, 1993. Likewise, Petitioner No.2, whohas been appointed in 1987, and whose services were regularized in 1989, statesthat he acquired graduation qualification in October, 1990. Both the petitioners claimthat they are entitled for additional increments for having acquired additionalqualification. They allege that though they made representations to RespondentNo.3, seeking additional increments, their cases have not been considered till date.They further state that when they approached Respondent No.3, they were orallyinformed that as they did not obtain prior permission to appear privately for higherstudies, they are not entitled for additional increments. It is the case of the petitionersthat there is no mandatory provision to obtain permission to prosecute higherstudies.

4. Respondents filed counter affidavit stating that once a person is appointed in thecorporation, and if he wants to prosecute higher studies, he has to seek permissionfrom the competent authority as per Circular No.PD-18/84-85 dated 01-06-1984, butthe petitioners failed to obtain permission as per the said circular. Learned StandingCounsel placed before this Court a copy of the aforesaid circular. It is further statedthat the petitioners submitted a representation to consider their claims for threeadditional increments (Graduate increments) from the date of their acquiringgraduation, and the allegation of the petitioners that the respondents are notconsidering their representations, is false. It is further stated that the corporation hasalso issued a circular No.PD-90/91 dated 14-10-1991. As per the said circular, the conductors who wereappointed on or before 24-04-1982, are only entitled for grant of three additionalincrements on acquiring graduation, whereas the petitioners were appointed in the year 1987, and their services were regularized on 01-08-1991 and 15-02-1989respectively; therefore, they are not entitled for graduation increments.

5. Admittedly, petitioners were appointed in the respondent-Corporation after 1982and their services were regularized with effect from 01-08-1991 and 15-02-1989respectively. As per the circular dated 14-10-1991, the conductors who wereappointed on or before 24-04-1982 are only entitled for grant of three additionalincrements on acquiring graduation. Since the petitioners were appointed after1982, they are not eligible for additional increments, and this apart, they have nottaken prior permission of the authorities to pursue graduation. Even for a moment, ifit is assumed that they had taken permission from the authorities to pursuegraduation, yet they having been appointed after 1982, are not entitled to claimadditional increments. Hence, no relief as sought by the petitioner can be granted inthis writ petition.

6. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

__________________

N.V. RAMANA, J.

December 26, 2005MRR