WRIT PETITION 23986 OF 2004 on 16 May 1995

IN THE HIGH COURT [FOR ][THE STATE OF ][TELANGANA AT ][HYDERABAD]

IUONDAY, THE SECOND [DAY ][OF ][SEPTEMBER]TWO THOUSAND [AND ][TWENTY ][FOUR]

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE [SMT ][JUSTICE MOUSHUMI ][BHATTACHARYA]ANDTHE HONOURABLE [SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI]

WRIT APPEAL[NO:][ 2280F ][2024]

&WRIT PETITIO[N ][No.][23986 ][of ][2004]

W.A No.228 OF 2024

Writ Appeal under [clause ][15 ][of ][the ][Letters Patent against ][the ][order ][dated]

w [P ][No ][23986 of ][2oO4 ][on the ][file ][of ][the ][High ][court']15/1a)d1} [in ]

Between:

B. Laxmaiah, S/o [Venkaiah ][A,/a ][58 ][years,^o^c^c- ][TSRTC ][Employee ][Rlo ][9-6-32211']Pragathi Nagar, Ramnagar, [Karimnagar - ][5U5UU1]

...APPELLANT(S)

AND

The Depot Manager, [APSRTC ][(NowTSRTC)' ][Godavarikhani ][Depot]

The Divisional [lvlanager, ][APSRTC ][(Now ][TSRTC), Karimnagar]

...RESPONDENTS

IA NO: 2 OF 2024

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesStatedinthe affidavit [filed in ][support ][of the ][petition, ][the ][High Court ][may be ][pleased ][to]direct the respondents [to ][grant ][the ][interim ][increments ][in ][the ][salary ][of ][the]petitioner Counsel for the Appellant [: ][SRI ][KATRAPATI SATYANARAYANA]

Counsel for the [Respondents: ][SRI ][A.SRINIVAS REDDY' (SC FOR TSRTC)]

W.P.No.23986 OF 2004

Between:

B. Laxmaiah, Occ:Karimnagar District

Conductor, S/o. Venkaiah, aged about 40 years, Ramanagar, .PETITIONER

AND

1I!9_?_"qo! [Nl_qnp ][g9r, ][ApS ][RTC, ][Godavarikhan ][i Depot, Godavari ]Khani,Karrmnagar Drstrict.Karrmnagar Drstrict.

The Senior lvlanager (O),ApSRTC, karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may bepleased to lssue a [tu\/rrt, ]order or directions, more in the nature of writ of ceritoraricalling the records in r.D.no. 'r 1g of 2000 dt.7.g.2oo1 on the fire,lf rabour court,Godavarikhani and quash the same as iflegar and arbitrary wifl arr consequentiarbenefits including service, increments and all other attendant benefits.

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.VASUDEVA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: SRt A.SR|N|VAS REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC)SRt A.SR|N|VAS REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC)The Court made the foltowing: COMMON JUDGMENT

il [-]

THE HON'BLE [JUSTICE ][MOUSHUMI ][BHATTACHARYA]AND

THE HON'BLE [JUSTICE ][M.G.PRIYADARSINI]

WRIT APP[EAL ][No.228 ][0F ][2024]

&

WRIT PETTTTONN[o.23986 ][OF ][2004]

COMMONJ[UDGMENT:][ (Per Hon'b\e ,Iustice A[oushumi ][Bht ][toclw)u)]

' The Writ Appeal [is ][frorn ][an ][order ][passed ][by ][the ][leamed]Single Judge [of ][this ][Court ][dated 15'12'2018 ][in ][W'P'No ]['23986 ][of]2004.

2. By the irnpugr.red [order, ][thc ][leamed Single ][Judge ][rnodified]the effect of [the ][punishment irnposed ][by the ][Senior ][Manager']Andhra Pradesh [State Road ][Tra,nsporl ][corporation ][(respondent]No.2 in the [Writ ][I']etition) ][and reltrsed ][to ][ir.rterf-ere ][with ][the Award]the [Industrial Tribunal ][and ][opined that ][the withholding]passed by of 2 increments [would ][be ][given ][effect ][to ][without ][any ][monetary]benefit to [the ][writ ]Petitioner.

3. We sought [lor ][a ][clarification ][of ][paragraph 5 ][of ][the impugned]orderfromthelearnedStandingCounselappearingfortherespondents. [I-ealncd ][Standing Cotrnsel ][has ][explained ][the ][effect ][of]paragraph 5 to [us.]

4. The genesis of the Appeal arises out of the proceedingsdated 27 .03.1 995 issued by Depot Manager, Godavarikhani.The petitioner (a Conductor of the Godavarikhani I)epot) wascharge-sheeted for remaining absent from his duties on anunauthorizcd basis lronr 2r.0g.Igg4 to 07. 10. lgg4 and again from20.03.1995 till dare i.e., rhe date of passing of the Award i.e.,27.03.1995. The Depot Manager examined the case in detail andordered that the writ petitioner should be removed from servicewith immediate effect. The writ petitioner approached the SeniorManager, Karimnagar by way of an Appeal provicied for underThe Telangana State Road Transport Corporation Regularions.5. The order of the Senior Manager, Karimnagar is part of therecords. Thc order of the Appellate Authority is of 16.05.1995 andrecords the facts brought to the Appellate Authorit.r theby appellant. 1.he Appellate Authority on considering the materialbefore him cleemed it fit to reinstate the appellant/writ petitionerinto service rvith imrnediate eflect and lor being posted at the depotconcemed. fhe Senior Manager also reduced the penalty to the extent oflhe [writ ][petitioner's ][annual ][increment ][being defened for ][a]period ol2 [years r'vhich shall have ][effect ][on ][his future ][increments']6. The writ [petitioner ][thereafter ][approached ][the ][Industrial]Tribunal-cum-l-abour [Court ][with ][a ][petition ][under Section ][2A (2) ][of]l'he lndustrial [Disputes Act, ][1947 ][for ][setting aside ][the ][removal]order of [the ][Depot Manager and ][for ][directing the Depot ][Manager]aswellastheSeniorManagertorestorethepayofthepetitionertoits original [position ][by ][adding ][the ][increments ][up to ][the ][present]with [all ][consequential ][benefits' ][The ][Industrial ][Tribunal]position an [Award ][on ][07'09'2001 dismissing ][the ][petition ][and]passed recording [that the ][petition ][has ][been ][filed ][after ][5 ][years ][from the ][date]of writ [petitioner's ][reinstatement ][into ][service ][only ][for ][vexatious]reasonsandunwarrantedlitigation.TheTribunalimposedcostsofRs.1,000/-onthewritpetitionertobepaidtotherespondentsandto [the respondents ][to ][recover the ][costs']liberty 7 . The appellantiwrit [petitioner ][thereafter ][fited a ][Writ ][Petition]before [a ][teamed ][Single ][Judge ][of ][this ][Court for ][issue ][of ][appropriate]writanddirectionandforquashingtheorderspassedbythe I

respondents as well for grant of scrvice increment:; to theappcl lant/rvrit petitioner.

8. We have heard lcamed counsel appearing for the palties.

9. We find that the writ petitioner lr.ould approach theIndustrial [-lribunal ]u,il.h a prayer for reinstatement rvhen the SeniorManager had alreadv directed lbr reinstatemcnt on 16.r.)5.1995.Admittedlr . the writ petitioner approached the Industrial [.l.ribunal]in 2000 rvhich is more than 5 years from the order passerl by theSenior Mar-rager. f'he reason for filing the Writ pctition in the I{ighCourt is equally curious. As on the date of filing ol. thc WritPetition. the writ petitioner was reinstated into service which rvasalso co,finned by the Industrial Tribunar in its Awarrr dated07 .09.2001 . Thercfbre, the only prcjudice sufl.ered b1, rhe rvritpetitioner u,as a fine of Rs. 1,000/_ and del-erment o1. his annualincrement fcrr a pcriod of 2 years.

I 0. The prayer in the Writ petition is equalll, r.ague. Thc u,ritpetitio,er prayed for issuance of Writ in thc naturc ot.,,vrit ofCertiorari and lor [,.quashing ]of thc same,, as illegal and arbilraryCertiorari and lor [,.quashing ]of thc same,, as illegal and arbilrarywith all consequential bcnefits bcing given to the rvrit petttioncr.

. [rt ]r:r$::*''r... "$}'. a'j

The prayer does not specify as to [the ][order which ][the ][writ]

petitioner sought quashing ol.

1 I . We have perused the impugned [order ][passed ][by ][the ][learned]Single Judge on 15.12.2018 [and ][find ][no ][reason ][to interfere ][with ][the]same. In fact, we find that the [learned Singte Judge ][directed ][that]reduction of pay by 2 increments [for ][2 ][years ][will ][not ][have ][any]elfect on luture increments. We [are ][of ][the ][view ][that ][the ][leamed]Single Judge should have [proceeded ][to ][dismiss ][the ][Writ ][Petition ][at]the very outset given the fact that [the ]Writ [Petition was ][filed ][3]years after the Industrial Tribunal Award.

12. The writ petitioner has not brought [any ][grievance ][to ][the]Courl in the Appeal. The [writ ][petitioner ][was reinstated ][to ][the ][post]which the writ petitioner was holding [as ]far [as ][on ][16.05'1995.]The writ petitioner however approached [the ][lndustrial ][Tribunal]after 6 years and thereafter the High Cou( [with a Writ ][Petition]3 years after the order passed by the [Industrial ][Tribunal.]The present Appeal has been filed [almost ]6 [years ][after ][the]impugned order.

1 3. The dclay, laches and acquiescence on the parl ol' the writpetitioner together with the complete absence of a cause of actionare sulficient grounds lor dismissal of the Appeal. We findabsolutely n,l merit either in the Writ Petitior.r or in the WritAppeal. We hence proceed also to dismiss the Writ Petitionare sulficient grounds lor dismissal of the Appeal. We findabsolutely n,l merit either in the Writ Petitior.r or in the WritAppeal. We hence proceed also to dismiss the Writ Petition

14. W.A.No.228 of 2024 and W.P.No.23986 of 2004, along withall connected applications, are dismissed. There shall bc no order SD/. I.NAGALAKHMIDEPUTY RRGIflTRARSEcTIoN M,,"."

//TRUE COPYII

To,

1One CC to SRt KATRApAI SATYANARAYANA, Advocate tOpUCltOpUClzOne CC to SRt K.VASUDEVA REDDY, Advocate. [OPUC]REDDY, Advocate. [OPUC]aOne CC to SRt A SR|N|VAS REDDY (SC FOR TSRTC). tOpUClSR|N|VAS REDDY (SC FOR TSRTC). tOpUCl4Two CD Copies.BSK,/,/LS

'....,

.a, .

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210912024

COMMON JUDGMENT

WA.No.228 of 2024&W.P.No.23986 of 2004

1flE:iTalec:,,1tUi:I [j[24]aJ5{+

n

7b/'"t

d,,4DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL &,€DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS