B. Kurmaiah, Mahaboobnagar Dist., ... vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc., ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 1506 Tel

Telangana High Court

B. Kurmaiah, Mahaboobnagar Dist., ... vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc., ... on 15 April, 2024

Author: Juvvadi Sridevi

Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi

         THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

                   WRIT PETITION No.22910 of 2010

ORDER:

Petitioners are aggrieved of not considering their service from the

date of their initial appointment in July, 1982 in Mahabubnagar region and

in not granting the 12 years stagnation increment.

2. Heard both sides and perused the record.

3. Petitioners were initially appointed as Conductors in Mahabubnagar

region, however, as there were no vacancies in Mahabubnagar region, they

were posted at Medak region and subsequently they were transferred to

Hyderabad region. Thereafter, at their request, they were transferred to

Mahabubnagar region and worked there till their retirement. Their

grievance is that the respondents have not granted 12 years stagnation

increment and they were also denied promotion on the ground that they

were transferred from another division by foregoing the seniority.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that since the

petitioners are now retired from service on attaining the age of

superannuation, they are not claiming seniority and are only seeking for

grant of 12 years stagnation increment as they have completed 12 years of

service in the same category. It is contended that as per the circulars of the

respondents-Corporation, the employees who have completed 12 years of JS, J

service in a particular category are entitled for special grade increment but

the same was not granted to them.

5. The respondents on the other hand, denied the claim of petitioners

for grant of 12 years stagnation increment on the ground that they were

transferred from Hyderabad division to Mahabubnagar division on their

own request and on the condition of foregoing seniority. Accordingly, they

prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. The service of petitioners in the respondents-Corporation is

admitted. Counsel for petitioners relied on the judgment of erstwhile High

Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.5726 of 2000, wherein, it is held that

all the employees working in the respondents-Corporation are entitled for

the stagnation increment/grade, provided they have completed 12 years of

service in the same category which may not be necessarily in the same

division and what is required to be taken is the total length of service of the

employees in that particular category. Questioning the same, the

respondent-Corporation filed Writ Appeal No.1301 of 2000 and the same

was dismissed. The aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable to the

present case of the petitioners. Since the petitioners have rendered more

than 12 years of service in the same category, they are entitled to 12 years

stagnation increment.

JS, J

7. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition is partly allowed

directing respondent Nos.1 and 3 to grant all the stagnation increments to

the petitioners as per their entitlement in terms of the circulars issued by

the Corporation, by taking into consideration their total service in the same

category, without reference to the fact that they were transferred from one

region to another region. Since the petitioners are retired from service, the

respondents shall pay difference of amounts payable to them. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 15.04.2024 lk