Telangana High Court
WP/6606/1999 of K.N.Reddy Vs A.P.S.R.T.C. on 26 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.6606 of 1999 Dated:26.12.2007 Between K.N.Reddy ..Petitioner and 1.APSRTC rep., by its Vic Chairman & Managing Director, Hyderabad and Another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.6606 of 1999 ORDER This writ petition is
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
W.P.No.6606 of 1999
Dated:26.12.2007
Between
K.N.Reddy
and
..Petitioner
1.APSRTC rep., by its Vic Chairman &Managing Director, Hyderabad andAnother.
…Respondents
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
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.6606 of 1999
This writ petition is filed seeking a
Mandamus to declare the proceedingsdated 24.7.1998 asNo.d1/255(22)/98-HCR, arbitrary and illegal, and consequently direct therespondents to treat the period from 29.6.1985 to24.11.1989 as on duty for all the purposes includingseniority and further direct the respondents topromote the petitioner to the post of Assistant DepotClerk/Controller duly taking his seniority as 708 withall consequential benefits.
It appears that the petitioner was appointedas Conductor in the respondent-Corporation witheffect from 23.10.1975. While that being so, on thecharge of cash and ticket irregularities, a detailedenquiry was conducted and he was removed from service vide order dated 24.2.1976. Aggrieved bythe same, the petitioner raised an industrial disputeand on failure of conciliation, the matter wasreferred to the Government. The Government, inturn, referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal foradjudication of the dispute, which was numbered asI.D.No.212 of 1980. The Industrial Tribunal by orderdated 11.1.1985, disposed of the said disputedirecting the respondents to reinstate the petitionerwith continuity of service, attendant benefits and fullback wages. Aggrieved by the same, therespondent-Corporation filed W.P.No.7332 of 1985,which was dismissed on 26-07-1989. Though theaward was passed on 11.1.1985, the petitioner wastaken back into service on 25.11.1989 and was paidback wages only up to 28-06-1985. Aggrieved bythe same, he filed MP No.34 of 1994 under Section33 ( c ) (2) before the Labour Court, which wasallowed on 14.10.1997 holding that the petitionerwas entitled for wages from 29.6.1985 to25.11.1989. Being aggrieved by this order, therespondent-Corporation filed writ petition No.33319
of 1997 and the same was also dismissed.
Now, the learned counsel for the petitionersubmits that after dismissal of writ petition Nos.7332of 1985 and 33319 of 1997 filed by the respondent-Corporation, the order impugned in this Writ Petitionwas passed stating that the petitioner reported toduty on 25.11.1989 although the reinstatementorder was issued on 29.6.1985 itself, and as such,that period was ordered by the Regional Manager tobe treated as ‘not on duty’ and his seniority rankwas fixed at 1606 (A) in the list of Conductors.
The facts are not in dispute. Once the writpetition No.7332 of 1985 was dismissed and the MPNo.34 of 1994 was allowed which was alsoconcluded in WP No. 33319 of 1997, the petitioner’sservice from 19.6.1985 to 24.11.1989 is to beautomatically treated as continued service for thepurpose of drawing increments, seniority etc. Therefore, the impugned order passed by therespondents is arbitrary and illegal and it is liable tobe set aside.
Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the respondents is set aside and they are directedto treat the petitioner’s service from 29.6.1985 to24.11.1989 as continued service for the purpose ofseniority, increments etc.
Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicatedabove. No costs.
__________
26-12-2007
rkk