IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

WRIT PETITION No : 7208 of 2008

Between:

• 1 M.Srinivas S/o.Swamy, APSRTC Midhani Bus Depot Kanchanbagh Hyd
• 2 S.R.Reddy S/o.Buchi Reddy Midhani Bus Depot Kanchanbagh Hyd

..... PETITIONERS

AND

1 The Regional Manager A.P.S.R.T.C Greater Hyderabad City Region,MGBS Complex, Gowliguda, Hyderabad 2 The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C Midhani Bus Depot Kanchanbagh Hyderabad

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will 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 12 years Special Grade Stagnation increment to the petitioners with effect from their completion of 12 years of Services rendered in the post of Driver irrespective of regions of the APSRTC and without proper fixation w.e.f their completion of 12 years of services in their cleaner posts as bad arbitrary illegal unjust and discriminatory and consequently direct the respondents to effect the 12 years Special Grade/stagnation increment to the petitioners with effect from their completion of 12 years of services in the post of Driver irrespective of the regions they served and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO

Counsel for the Respondent N: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR

APSRTC)

The Court made the following ORDER:

The petitioners claim to have completed twelve years of service as Drivers. Their grievance is that they are not extended the benefit of special grade increment, even after completion of twelve years of service.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

It is no doubt true that the Corporation has provided for sanction of an increment in favour of employees who continued in the same category for a period of twelve years. The question as to whether the petitioners have fulfilled the conditions for grant of an increment needs to be considered by the respondents. As of now, the petitioners have not submitted any representation. Therefore, there was no occasion for the respondents to pass a reasoned order.

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to submit a representation to the first respondent pointing out their grievance. The first respondent, in turn, shall take necessary action on the same, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of the representation, duly taking into account the circulars that govern the matter. There shall be no order as to costs.

03.04.2008

______________

kdl

..... REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SECTION OFFICER

$\mathsf T\mathsf o$ 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies

Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR}

$\overline{1}$