WP/19674/2013 of M.Yadaiah, Vs The Regional Manager, on 4 February 2026

1. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad City Region, Gowliguda, Hyderabad, A.P.

2. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, MSRD-Il Bus Depot, Hyderabad, A.P. Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in not allowing the notional increments to the petitioner for his out of employment period i.e. the date of removal (suspension) to the date of reinstatement 9-10-2004 lo 17 -11-2009 as bad arbitrary illegal and contrary to the award of the Labour court and consequently direct the respondent to allow the notional increments for the above period to the petitioners pay by paying the arrears. l.A. NO: 't OF 2Ol3IWPMP. NO: 241 r0 0F 2013t Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the petitioner salary from this month onwards by allowing notional increrments out of employment period i.e. the date of removal (suspension). to the date of reinstatement 9-10-2004 to 17-11-2009, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for tlhe Respondents: SRI A.KEDARNATH, REP. SRI R.ANURAG, SC FOR TSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER

r1 Between: M.Yadaiah .. Petitioner AND The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad CitY Region, Gowliguda, Hyderabad, A.P. and another . Respondents :OR ER: 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 tN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE N'BLE . JUSTICE JUWADI SRI DEVI WRIT P ON No.1967 of 201 3

BRUARY, 2026

preferred by him were rejected on o6.o6.2oos and 22.03.2006, respectively. Questioning the same, petitioner has approached the Labour court by filing l.D.No.77 of 2009. The said tD was ailowed in part setting aside the order of removal with a direction to reinstate the rretitioner with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but withc,ut 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 counser for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the errstwhile High court of Judicature of Andhra pradesh at Hyderabad in T.Narayana v. Managing Director, ApsRrc, 'Hydercbad and otherst , 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. consequenfly, his pay is required to be computed by taking into account the periodical increments he would have earnecl had he been not removed from service. Relying on the said judgmernt, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is entifled for I tees 1:; ALD 304 i Ii I *

I i i i notaonal 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. 1O.2OO4 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 17'11'2OO9' Accordingly, the respondents are directed to extend notional i I i I : ii il li I I I I ,

,l !

increrments to the petitioner for the said period and fix his pay within threer (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No cr:sts Pending misceilaneous apprications, if any, shail stand close,C. That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness The Hon'ble SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH, The Chief Justice on this Wednesdary, the Fourth Day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty Six. SD/.AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN ASSISTANT STRAR ,/TRUE COPY// OFFICER

1. The Re'gional Manager, TGSRTC, Hyderabad City Region, Gowliguda, Hyderabad, A.P.

2. The Dep,ot Manager, TGSRTC, MSRD-ll Bus Depot, Hyderabad, Telangana.

3. One CC to SRI P.VENKATESWAR RAO, Advocate [OPUC]

4. One CC to SRI R.ANURAG, SC FOR TSRTC [OPUCI

5. Two CD Copies To, BSR BS ,,M

: I i I I: \ \ HIGH COURT DATED i 0410212026

ORDER

WP.No.1 9674 of 2013 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS -Ta s r,l'ltc ( THE s 1 ? ilrq ,firy )J I * * +