Telangana High Court
WP/19154/2004 of B.Prasada Rao, Vs The Chairman cum Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. on 28 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 19154 of 2004 Between: B.Prasada Rao, S/o late B.Ranga Nayakulu, R/o D.No.18/775/14,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU
WRIT PETITION NO : 19154 of 2004
Between:
B.Prasada Rao, S/o late B.Ranga Nayakulu, R/o D.No.18/775/14, Katale Veedhi, Gunthakal, Ananthapur District
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Chairman cum Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. Musheerabad, R.T.C. X Roads, Hyderabad 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Ananthapur, Ananthapur District 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Gunthakal, Ananthapur District
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a Writ order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent proceedingsNo.P2/785(1)/2004-RM-A dated 4-9-2004 as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified,unsustainable, unreasonable, contrary to law and set-aside the same andconsequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner forappointment of conductor/ or any other suitable post on compassionate groundunder the bread winner scheme forthwith.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAMA RAO
Counsel for the Respondents: MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY (SC FOR APSRTC)
The Court made the following:
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.
ORAL ORDER:
Challenging the 2[nd] respondent’s proceedings No.P2/785(1)/2004-RM-A, dated 4.9.2004, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
The petitioner’s father died on 25.4.2001 leaving behind thepetitioner, two brothers and mother of the petitioner. For theunauthorized absence of the father of the petitioner from duties from23.5.1999 to 2.6.1999, the 3[rd] respondent herein removed him fromservice vide proceedings dated 21.3.2000. As against the removalorder, the claimants (the petitioner herein, his two brothers and hismother) raised an industrial dispute. The Tribunal gave a direction tothe 3[rd] respondent to pay all the consequential benefits to theclaimants. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application, dated19.3.2004 to the 2[nd] respondent to appoint him as Conductor or inany suitable post, but the said application was rejected on the groundthat the petitioner received all the retirement benefits in view of theaward passed by the Labour Court, Anantapur in I.D.No.293 of 2001,dated 31.10.2003. Challenging the same, this writ petition has beenfiled.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that theterminal benefits if any made in pursuance of the order of the Tribunalhave nothing to do with the appointment on compassionate groundsunder Bread Winner Scheme.
The learned standing counsel for the respondents hascontended that the appointment to be made on compassionategrounds has to be determined with reference to the scheme if anyavailable and the rules and regulations of the Corporation.
In view of the contentions raised by both the parties it is clearthat the application of the petitioner was not considered with reference to the scheme and the rules and regulations of theCorporation, but it was rejected solely based on the award passed bythe Tribunal. Therefore, it is unsustainable.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I amof the considered opinion that the impugned proceedings dated4.9.2004 of the 2[nd] respondent suffer from legal infirmities warrantinginterference by this Court. The impugned proceedings areaccordingly quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the 2[nd]respondent for passing appropriate orders in accordance with thescheme and rules and regulations of the Corporation within a periodof two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. Inthe circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
_______________
(K.C. BHANU, J.)
28[th] December, 2004.
To
1. The Chairman cum Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. Musheerabad, R.T.C. X Roads, Hyderabad
2. The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Ananthapur, Ananthapur District
3. The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Gunthakal, Ananthapur District
4. Two C.D. copies