1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:

               “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 notional increments for the period from date of removal to date of reinstatement (16.6.1995 to 3.2.2009) is bad, arbitrary, illegal and wrong interpretation and contrary to the Judgment of Apex Court and consequently direct the respondent to allow the above said notional increments for the said period with proper fixation by paying the arrears”

02. Heard Sri P. Venkateshwer Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and N.S.V. Janaki, learned counsel, Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-RTC and perused the material available on record.

03(a). Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Daily Wage Cleaner in the respondent-Corporation on 13.06.1999, whose services were subsequently regularized on 01.07.1990, and thereafter he was promoted as Mechanic in the year 1993. While so, a charge sheet dated 08.10.1994 was issued alleging unauthorized absence from duty for the period from 04.09.1994 to 08.10.1994. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted his explanation along with a medical certificate justifying his absence and, on consideration thereof, he was permitted to resume duties on 26.10.1994. However, thereafter, a show cause notice dated 29.10.1994 was issued alleging that the petitioner again absented himself after attending duties for four days, and without issuing any charge sheet in respect of the subsequent period of alleged absence or conducting any departmental enquiry, the respondents passed proceedings dated 16.06.1995 removing the petitioner from service.

               03(b). It is further contended that the petitioner preferred a departmental appeal against the order of removal, but the same came to be rejected. Thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No.1 of 2001 before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. Though the Labour Court, by Award dated 20.05.2003, dismissed the industrial dispute, it 3 observed that the order of removal dated 16.06.1995 should be treated as one of voluntary retirement.

               03(c). Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No.26525 of 2003 before this Court and by order dated 22.10.2008, allowed the writ petition, set aside both the Award of the Labour Court as well as the order of removal dated 16.06.1995, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service without back wages but with continuity of service. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 03.02.2009.

               03(d). It is further contention of the petitioner that, notwithstanding the direction of this Court granting continuity of service, the respondents failed to extend the consequential service benefits flowing therefrom. Though the petitioner was reinstated and placed in the appropriate pay scale applicable to the post of Mechanic, the respondents declined to grant notional annual increments for the period between the date of removal i.e. 16.06.1995, and the date of reinstatement i.e. 03.02.2009. According to the petitioner, the respondents unjustifiably took the stand that, since the order of this Court did not specifically grant "attendant benefits," the petitioner was not entitled to notional increments for the interregnum period.

               03(e). Learned counsel further submit that once this Court directed reinstatement with continuity of service, the petitioner must be deemed to have remained in continuous service for all service-related purposes except entitlement to back wages, which alone had been denied. It is further contended that continuity of service necessarily carries with it all consequential benefits such as notional fixation of pay, annual increments, reckoning of qualifying service for pension, gratuity, provident fund, and other retiral benefits. Denial of notional increments, despite granting continuity of service, would render the direction of this Court illusory and defeat the very object of the relief granted.

               03(f). In support of the said contention, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Others((2013) 10 SCC 324), wherein it was held that reinstatement with continuity of service ordinarily entitles an employee to all consequential service benefits except to the extent specifically denied by the Court. It is further submitted that the said principle was followed by the Delhi High Court in Mahabir Prasad v. Delhi Transport Corporation(2014-IV-LLJ-413 (Del)), wherein it was held that continuity of service includes entitlement to notional increments for the period during which the employee remained out of service, with corresponding benefits relating to pension, gratuity and provident fund.

               03(g). It is further contended that the respondents have also denied the petitioner the benefit of the 12-year stagnation increment/special grade solely on the ground that he remained out of employment during the period from 16.06.1995 to 03.02.2009. According to the petitioner, such denial is wholly illegal inasmuch as the said period stands protected by the order of this Court granting continuity of service. Consequently, the entire period between removal and reinstatement ought to be reckoned as qualifying service for determining eligibility for grant of stagnation increment/special grade.

               03(h). Learned counsel further placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in M.D. Rahamathullah v. Depot Manager, APSRTC, Karimnagar & Others(1999 (4) ALD 197) wherein it was held that once continuity of service is granted by the Court, the employee is entitled to the benefit of stagnation increments and other consequential service benefits. It is submitted that the said Judgment was affirmed in W.A.No.1335 of 1999 dated 21.09.1999 and the Special Leave Petition preferred was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

It is therefore submitted that the action of the respondents in refusing to grant notional annual increments for the period from 16.06.1995 to 03.02.2009 and in declining to count the said period for the purpose of granting the 12-year stagnation increment/special grade is arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable and contrary to the binding judicial precedents as well as the earlier order passed by this Court directing reinstatement with continuity of service. It is accordingly prayed that this Court declare the impugned action of the respondents as illegal and arbitrary, direct the respondents to grant the petitioner notional annual increments for the aforesaid period with consequential pay fixation and monetary benefits in accordance with law, and further direct that the period from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement be treated as qualifying service for all service benefits, including grant of the 12-year stagnation increment/special grade and other consequential retiral benefits.

04(a). Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents–RTC contended that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Cleaner on daily wage basis on 13.06.1989 and his services were regularized with effect from 01.07.1990. Subsequently, he was promoted as Mechanic on 11.08.1994. However, on account of unauthorized absence from duty, disciplinary proceedings were 7 initiated against him and, upon conclusion of the disciplinary process, he was removed from service with effect from 16.06.1995.

               04(b). It is further submitted that aggrieved by the order of removal, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute in I.D. No.1 of 2001 before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. The Labour Court, by Award dated 20.05.2003, dismissed the industrial dispute and upheld the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority. Though the Labour Court observed that the petitioner would be entitled to retiral benefits by treating the order of removal as one of voluntary retirement, it declined to grant the relief of reinstatement or any consequential service benefits.

               04(c). Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the petitioner challenged the said Award by filing W.P.No.26525 of 2003 before this Court. By order dated 22.10.2008, this Court partly allowed the writ petition by setting aside the Award of the Labour Court as well as the order of removal dated 16.06.1995 and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service without back wages but with continuity of service. According to the respondents, the said order did not grant any other consequential or attendant service benefits, including notional increments, arrears of pay or stagnation increments.               04(d). It is contended that, in compliance with the aforesaid order, the petitioner was reinstated into service and his pay was fixed in the cadre of Mechanic Grade-II. However, the benefit of the 12-year stagnation/special grade increment was not extended to him since he remained out of service for a period of about 13 years and 7 months, i.e., from 16.06.1995 till his reinstatement on 03.02.2009. The respondents submit that the petitioner cannot seek reckoning of the said period for grant of stagnation increment merely because continuity of service was directed, particularly when the Court had consciously denied back wages and had not granted any attendant monetary benefits.

               04(e). Learned Standing Counsel argued that the order passed in W.P.No.26525 of 2003 attained finality and has to be implemented strictly in terms thereof. According to the respondents, continuity of service granted by the Court was only for the limited purpose of reinstatement and continuity in service, and in the absence of a specific direction granting consequential monetary benefits or notional increments, the petitioner cannot claim annual increments or the 12-year stagnation/special grade increment. It is submitted that unless the order expressly grants attendant benefits, no right accrues to the 9 petitioner to claim fixation of pay by granting notional increments during the period he remained out of employment.

               04(f). It is further submitted that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking grant of notional annual increments for the period from 16.06.1995 to 03.02.2009 along with consequential pay fixation and arrears. During the pendency of the writ petition, this Court, by interim order dated 30.12.2014, directed the respondent-Corporation to extend the benefit of the 12-year stagnation/special grade increment by counting the period during which the petitioner remained out of service. According to the respondents, if the said interim order is permitted to continue, the respondent-Corporation would suffer grave financial prejudice and irreparable loss.

               04(g). By way of additional counter affidavit, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the principal relief sought in the present writ petition is for grant of notional increments for the interregnum period between the date of removal and the date of reinstatement, together with consequential refixation of pay and payment of arrears. It is contended that the petitioner has deliberately omitted to disclose all the earlier proceedings which have attained finality and is attempting to reopen issues already concluded between the parties.               04(h). It is submitted that after the Order in W.P.No.26525 of 2003, the petitioner himself preferred W.A.No.857 of 2009, which came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 30.06.2009. Consequently, the Order rendered in the writ petition attained finality. It is further submitted that the petitioner also initiated contempt proceedings in C.C.No.942 of 2010 alleging non-compliance of the order passed in W.P. No.26525 of 2003 on the ground that the scale of pay attached to the post had not been extended. The said contempt case was dismissed by order dated 13.09.2010. Therefore, according to the respondents, the rights and obligations arising out of the earlier Order have already been adjudicated and concluded.

               04(i). Learned Standing Counsel contended that, in view of the dismissal of the writ appeal as well as the contempt case, the petitioner is estopped from re-agitating the same issue in the present proceedings. The present writ petition, according to the respondents, is barred by the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata, as the petitioner is seeking consequential monetary benefits flowing from the very same Judgment, which had already attained finality and whose implementation had also been the subject matter of contempt proceedings.

               04(j). It is further submitted that the relevant records pertaining to the earlier litigation could not be placed before this Court at the initial stage as the matter relates to events which took place more than fifteen years ago and pertains to the period prior to the bifurcation of the State, due to which the records could not be readily traced. Upon tracing the records, the respondents have produced before this Court copies of the Judgment in W.A.No.857 of 2009, the order in C.C.No.942 of 2010, the Award passed in I.D. No.1 of 2001 and the relevant circulars governing grant of increments and special grade, so as to assist this Court in arriving at a just and proper adjudication.

               04(k). On the aforesaid grounds, learned Standing Counsel prayed that the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed, as the petitioner has no legal or enforceable right to claim notional annual increments or the benefit of the 12-year stagnation/special grade increment for the period during which he remained out of service, in the absence of any specific direction granting attendant monetary benefits in the earlier round of litigation.

05. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for either side, and upon perusal of the record, the question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner who was reinstated into service pursuant to the order of this 12 Court in W.P.No.26525 of 2003 directing reinstatement without back wages but with continuity of service, is entitled, as a matter of right, to claim notional annual increments for the period during which he remained out of service, namely from 16.06.1995 to 03.02.2009, together with consequential fixation of pay, arrears and the benefit of 12-year stagnation/special grade increment.

06. On a careful perusal of the record, the petitioner was removed from service by proceedings dated 16.06.1995 on the charge of unauthorized absence. Though the Labour Court, in I.D. No.1 of 2001, confirmed the order of removal, the same was interfered with by this Court in W.P.No.26525 of 2003, wherein the order of removal as well as the Award of the Labour Court were set aside and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner into service without back wages and with continuity of service. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was reinstated on 03.02.2009.

07. The entire claim of the petitioner rests upon the expression "continuity of service" employed in the order passed in W.P.No.26525 of 2003. According to the petitioner, once continuity of service has been granted, all consequential service benefits, including annual increments, pay fixation, stagnation increments and other monetary benefits, necessarily follow. On the other hand, the 13 respondents contend that the earlier order merely granted continuity of service for the purpose of reinstatement and did not grant any attendant monetary benefits. Therefore, according to the respondents, the petitioner cannot seek notional increments for the period during which he admittedly did not discharge any duties.

08. Primarily, it requires to be noticed that the order passed in W.P.No.26525 of 2003 has attained finality. The petitioner himself questioned the said order by filing W.A.No.857 of 2009, which came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner also invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court by filing C.C.No.942 of 2010 alleging non-compliance of the directions issued in the writ petition. The contempt case also came to be dismissed. Therefore, the scope and extent of the relief granted in W.P.No.26525 of 2003 can no longer be enlarged in the present proceedings.

09. A careful reading of the operative portion of the judgment in W.P.No.26525 of 2003 shows that while directing reinstatement, this Court consciously denied the petitioner the benefit of back wages. Equally significant is the fact that the Court did not issue any positive direction granting consequential monetary benefits, attendant benefits, notional increments, pay fixation or other service advantages. The 14 relief granted was confined to reinstatement without back wages and continuity of service.

10. It is well settled that the expression "continuity of service" cannot be construed in isolation divorced from the context in which it is granted. Whether continuity of service would automatically carry with it all consequential monetary benefits depends upon the language employed in the judgment, the facts of the case and the specific directions issued by the Court. Where the Court consciously moulds the relief by denying back wages and refrains from granting consequential monetary benefits, such benefits cannot subsequently be imported by way of interpretation.

11. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase’s case cited supra, does not advance his case. The observations made therein cannot be read as laying down an inflexible proposition that in every case where continuity of service is granted, all monetary benefits automatically follow irrespective of the specific directions contained in the Judgment. The entitlement to consequential benefits must necessarily depend upon the nature of the relief granted by the Court. Likewise, the decision of the Delhi High Court in Mahabir Prasad’s case cited supra, turned upon the peculiar facts and directions issued 15 in that case. Similarly, the judgment in M.D.Rahamathullah’s case cited supra was rendered in an entirely different factual context where the Court had directed extension of the consequential benefits. The ratio of the said decisions cannot be mechanically applied to the facts of the present case.

12. In the instant case, this Court, while deciding W.P.No.26525 of 2003, had ample opportunity to grant all consequential benefits if it intended to do so. However, the Court consciously confined the relief to reinstatement with continuity of service and specifically denied back wages. Significantly, there was no direction either expressly or impliedly directing grant of annual increments, notional pay fixation or stagnation increments. If the interpretation sought to be placed by the petitioner is accepted, it would amount to virtually modifying or enlarging the earlier judgment, which has already attained finality. Such an exercise is impermissible in law.

13. The annual increments are ordinarily earned on account of satisfactory service rendered during the relevant period. Admittedly, the petitioner did not render any service to the Corporation between 16.06.1995 and 03.02.2009. Though the order of removal was subsequently set aside, this Court consciously denied back wages and 16 did not direct grant of attendant monetary benefits. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek notional increments for a period during which he admittedly did not discharge any duties, in the absence of a specific judicial direction.

14. Equally untenable is the petitioner's claim for grant of the 12-year stagnation/special grade increment by counting the period during which he remained out of service. Such a benefit is governed not only by continuity of service but also by the applicable service regulations and eligibility conditions. In the absence of any express direction in the earlier judgment granting such consequential monetary benefits, the respondents cannot be faulted for declining to extend the said benefit.

15. This Court also finds considerable force in the contention of the respondents that the present writ petition substantially seeks to secure consequential monetary benefits flowing from the judgment rendered in W.P.No.26525 of 2003, which had already attained finality after dismissal of the writ appeal. The petitioner had also unsuccessfully pursued contempt proceedings alleging non-implementation of the said judgment. Though the strict doctrine of res judicata may not be attracted in its technical sense to every service dispute, the principle of finality of litigation certainly applies. A party 17 cannot repeatedly seek enlargement of the relief granted in an earlier judgment under the guise of seeking implementation thereof.

16. It is also pertinent to note that the respondents have complied with the directions issued in W.P.No.26525 of 2003 by reinstating the petitioner into service and extending continuity of service to the extent directed by this Court. The grievance now projected by the petitioner essentially seeks conferment of additional monetary benefits which were neither granted nor contemplated under the earlier judgment. Such a claim cannot be entertained in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

17. The interim order dated 30.12.2014 passed during the pendency of the writ petition cannot create any substantive right in favour of the petitioner. An interim arrangement is always subject to the final adjudication of the writ petition and merges with the final order passed therein. Once this Court finds that the petitioner has failed to establish any enforceable legal right to claim notional increments or stagnation increment for the disputed period, the interim order necessarily loses its efficacy.

18. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish that the 18 respondents acted arbitrarily or illegally in declining to grant notional annual increments for the period from 16.06.1995 to 03.02.2009 or in refusing to count the said period for the purpose of grant of 12-year stagnation/special grade increment. The relief sought by the petitioner would amount to enlarging the scope of the earlier judgment in W.P.No.26525 of 2003, which has already attained finality, and such a course is legally impermissible.

19. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 30.12.2014, if still in force, shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.