Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. and Others vs D. Victor

Devinder Gupta, C.J.—Learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition of the respondent relying upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in APSRTC, Khammam Region and Another Vs. P. Nageswara Rao, and directed the appellant to fix the pay of the respondent taking into consideration notional increments from the date of removal till date of reinstatement. This order is under challenge by the appellants in this appeal. It is submitted that the Supreme Court in APSRTC v. S. Narsagoud (2002) 2 SCC 212 has decided similar point and in view of that decision the decision in P. Nageswara Rao''s case is no longer a good law. In S. Narsagoud''s case (2002) 2 SCC 212 the Supreme Court held that:

There is a difference between an order of reinstatement accompanied by a simple direction of continuity of service and a direction where reinstatement is accompanied by a specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to all consequential benefits or to the benefit of the increments earned during the period of absence. The employee 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 was directed to be reinstated with the benefit of continuity in service.

In view of the ratio of the decision in S. Narsagoud''s case, in the instant case where the respondent was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service but without backwages and without attendant benefits, the respondent is not entitled to notional increments during the period he remained out of service and consequently the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

The learned counsel for the respondent urged that a review petition has been filed in S. Narsagoud''s case which is pending consideration before the Supreme Court and hence this appeal be kept pending till the decision in the review petition by the Supreme Court. However, we will make it clear that in the event of Supreme Court taking a contrary view it will be open for this respondent to seek review of this order.

In view of the above the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.