Laxma Reddy v. A.P.S.R.T.C. and Ors.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
P. Sathasivam
Judgment Date: 2007-11-22
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Laxma Reddy

Respondents

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) and its functionaries

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V. Sridhar Reddy
• Abhijit Sengupta

Counsels for Respondents

• D. Mahesh Babu

Case Synopsis & Summary

The appellant, Laxma Reddy, filed a writ petition challenging an order of reinstatement and seeking fixation of his pay by taking into account notional increments during the period of unauthorized absence. The Labour Court had directed reinstatement, and the appellant sought continuity in service with pay fixed to reflect notional increments, arguing that for all practical purposes there was continuity of service. A Single Judge relied on a Division Bench decision in APSRTC Khammam Region and Anr. v. P. Nageswara Rao (2001) 4 ALD 568 (DB) and permitted the writ petition. The High Court, however, in a writ appeal filed by the respondent APSRTC and its functionaries, reversed, noting that this Court had disapproved the view in P. Nageswara Rao v. APSRTC and thus allowed the writ appeal and dismissed the writ petition. The Supreme Court reconciled the principles with the rulings in S. Narsagoud and Abdul Kareem, clarifying that an order of reinstatement with continuity in service does not automatically confer increments unless a specific direction entitles the employee to such benefits.”,

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

There is a difference between an order of reinstatement accompanied by 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, including increments earned during the period of absence.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contended that reinstatement with continuity effectively bridges the service gap, making it appropriate to fix pay including notional increments that would have accrued had service continued, unless a specific order is given restricting or enabling increments. He relied on the Division Bench view in APSRTC Khammam Region and Anr. v. P. Nageswara Rao to justify increments notionally earned during the absence.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the legal position is settled by S. Narsagoud and Abdul Kareem: a mere reinstatement with continuity does not automatically grant increments; increments or other consequential benefits require explicit direction. They contended that the High Court correctly dismissed the petition in light of these precedents and that reliance on P. Nageswara Rao’s view was misplaced since it had been disapproved by later decisions.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
A.P.S.R.T.C. v. S. Narsagoud	(2003) 2 SCC 212	Positive	The Court followed this decision to articulate the principle that a reinstatement with continuity does not automatically entitle increments absent a specific direction.
A.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Ors. v. Abdul Kareem	(2005) 6 SCC 36	Positive	The reasoning from Abdul Kareem was used to reinforce that increments are not granted by default upon reinstatement.
APSRTC Khammam Region and Anr. v. P. Nageswara Rao	(2001) 4 ALD 568 (DB)	Overruled	The view in this Division Bench decision was disapproved by A.P.S.R.T.C v. S. Narsagoud (2003) 2 SCC 212; the current judgment clarifies the accepted principle and does not follow the earlier view.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

A B ## I. LAXMA REDDY _v._ A.P.S.R.T.C. AND ORS. NOVEMBER 22, 2007 [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 case[1] ,_ 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 A ', the order passed by the High Court. 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.