Telangana High Court
WP/42490/2015 of Ch. Ravi Kumar S/o Chenchaiah, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, on 31 December 2015
SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.42490 of 2015 DATED : 31.12.2015 Between: Ch. Ravi Kumar S/o. Chenchaiah, Aged 52 yrs, Occu : Shramik, O/o. Tenali Depot, Tenali, Guntur District, .. Petitioner AND Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep., by its Chairman and Managing
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.42490 of 2015DATED : 31.12.2015
Between:Ch. Ravi Kumar S/o. Chenchaiah,Aged 52 yrs, Occu : Shramik,O/o. Tenali Depot, Tenali,Guntur District,AND
.. Petitioner
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation,Rep., by its Chairman and Managing Director,Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad – 01 & 3 others. .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION No.42490 of 2015
ORDER:
The petitioner initially joined in service as driver and afterdeclaring him as medically unfit to discharge the duties as driver hewas provided appointment as Shramik which post he is holding nowsince 14.06.2010. It appears from reading of the affidavit filed insupport of the writ petition that petitioner has several grievancesregarding regulation of conditions of his service. It appears that twodisciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner resultingin passing two independent orders on 27.07.2006 and 30.12.2006. Inthe first order the petitioner was visited with punishment of with-holdingof increments for a period of two years having cumulative effect and inthe second order he was visited with punishment of with-holding ofannual increment for a period of one year having cumulative effect, aswell as recovery of Rs.1000/-. The effect of these two proceedingswould be that petitioner would not be getting three annual incrementswhen they were next due from the dates of passing of those orders.Whereas in this writ petition the petitioner is seeking for release ofannual increments from the year 2006 onwards. Since thepunishments imposed on 27.07.2006 and 30.12.2006 have becomefinal and are not assailed in this writ petition, the question of directingthe respondents to grant increments from the year 2006 does not arise.
2. It appears that petitioner was placed under suspension which ultimately culminated in taking disciplinary action and imposition ofpunishments. Therefore, the period of absence treating the petitioneras “on duty” does not arise. Therefore, on this grievance no relief assought for by the petitioner can be granted.
3. In addition to the above grievances, it appears from a readingof the affidavit that the petitioner was kept out of duty from 14.05.2006to 12.10.2009 on the ground of incapacity to discharge the duties asdriver and ultimately he was declared as unfit and given alternativeemployment in which he is working since 14.06.2010. The petitioneralso has a grievance that for the said period he was put out of duty andno salary and allowances were paid. It is an independent grievancefrom the present grievances regarding regulation of period ofsuspension and payment of increments. This being an independentissue the petitioner has to agitate separately.
4. However, as noticed from the relief sought in the writ petition,the relief is confined to release of increments from the year 2006,payment of salary to the period of 60 days from 25.03.2005 to23.05.2005 and for 10 days from 14.11.2005 to 24.11.2005. Asnoticed above, the said relief cannot be granted in view of thefinalization of the disciplinary proceedings and imposing ofpunishments. Regarding entitlement of salary for the period when hewas put out of duty, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach thecompetent authority ventilating his grievance and it is for thecompetent authority to consider the same and to pass appropriateorders.
5. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shallstand closed.
___________________
P.NAVEEN RAO, JDate: 31[st] December, 2015Rds