Telangana High Court
WP/23878/2004 of Gummalla Veerraju, Vs Principal Secretary, on 28 December 2004
HIGH 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 : 23878 of 2004 Between: Gummalla Veerraju, S/o. Padma Raju, Hindu, aged 55 years,
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 : 23878 of 2004
Between:
Gummalla Veerraju, S/o. Padma Raju, Hindu,aged 55 years, R.T.C. Driver E-92270, D.No. 3-254, Katheru, Konthamuru Road, Rajahmundry Rural, East Godavari District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1. Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
3. Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.
....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, directingthe respondents to take steps to implement the benefits given under the NotificationNo. PD-14/2003, dt. 8-10-2003 in pursuant to the amended Regulation 6-A (5) ofService Regulations dt. 28-7-2003 or in alternative the respondents may be directed to implement the benefits given under the Persons with Disabilities (equalopportunities, protections of Rights and full participation) Act, 1995, to the petitionerherein and pass such other order or orders.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR TRANSPORT
Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3: Kum.B.G.Umadevi 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.
ORDER:
For not taking steps by the respondents to implement the benefits given under theNotification No.PD-14/2003 dated 08.10.2003, the present writ petition is filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the amended Regulation 6A (5)of APSRTC employees (Service) Regulations 1964 providing better benefits to themedically unfit drivers has been approved by the Chair person, pending sanction ofthe Government, but they are not implemented. Aggrieved by the same, the presentwrit petition is filed.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 contended that theGovernment has not sanctioned any amendment of regulation and therefore afterapproval of the Government only the said amendment of Regulation 6A (5) ofRegulations 1964 would be given effect.
4. Perused the material papers on record. As per the notification No.PD-14/2003dated 08.10.2003 the Board of the respondents 2 and 3 by its resolutionNo.128/2003 dated 28.7.2003 accorded approval for amending Regulation 6A (5) ofAPSRTC employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 providing better benefits to themedically unfit drivers. The Chair person accorded approval implementing theamended Regulation 6A(5) of the APSRTC employees (Service) Regulations, 1964pending sanction of the Government.
5. As seen from the notification, it is also clear that the said amended regulation isnotified in the annexure for implementation with immediate effect. Therefore, therespondents are bound to accept the amendment to give effect for implementationimmediately. The respondents 1 and 2 are bound by the notification No.PD-14/2003dated 08.10.2003. Therefore, the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for therespondents 2 and 3 cannot be accepted at all. Unless the Government has approved the said amendment it cannot be given effect, but the purport of theproceedings dated 08.10.2003 would clearly indicate that the said amendedregulation is notified and came into effect immediately.
6. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, directing the respondents to take further stepsto implement the benefits given under the notification No.PD-14/2003 dated08.10.2003. No costs.
Date: 28[th] December 2004.
BSB
_____________
K.C.BHANU,J.
That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above.
Witness the Hon’ble Sri Devinder Gupta, the Chief Justice on this Tuesday the 28[th]day of December two thousand and four.
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
// TRUE COPY //
SECTION OFFICER
To
1. The Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
2. The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
3. The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.
4. Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Transport, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (OUT).
5. Two CD copies