I. LAXMA REDDY versus A.P.S.R.T.C. AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 433 · Decided: 22-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT

Judgment (excerpt)

I. LAXMA REDDY 
A 
v. 
A.P.S.R.T.C. AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 22, 2007 
[DR.ARIJITPASAYAT ANDP.SATHASIVAM,JJ.) 
B 
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 case1, 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 
B 
c 
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. 
V. Sridhar Reddy and Abhijit Sengupta for the Appellant. 
D. Mahesh Babu for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
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 
the order passed by the High Court. 
A 
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 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.