WP/24285/2004 of P.Narsimulu Vs The Regional Manager, Medak Region on 27 December 2004

ORDER:

The petitioner is working as a driver in the respondent Corporation.He joined in the service of the Corporation in the year 1986 and hisservices were regularized with effect from 01.09.1987. On the groundthat the petitioner caused an accident on 30.06.2003 nearKukatpally, charges were framed against him. In a regular enquiry, hewas imposed a punishment of removal from service through the orderof the 2[nd] respondent dated 02.01.2004.

2. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1[st] respondent and the 1[st] respondent was pleased to set aside theorder of removal through the order dated 06.07.2004 and directedreinstatement of the petitioner into service with immediate effect. The1[st] respondent further mentioned in that order that the petitioner shallbe treated as a fresh driver duly putting him under minimum of basicapart from treating the out of service period as not on duty. Therefore,the petitioner approached this Court seeking a writ of certiorari byquashing the impugned proceedings dated 02.01.2004.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the wordingused by the 1[st] respondent as ‘reinstatement’ and the furtherdirection that the period from the date of removal till the date ofreinstatement shall be treated as not on duty is a clear indication thatthe concerned authority was intending to treat it as a continuity ofservice but by mistake it was mentioned as a fresh appointment. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Courtthrough the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in DepotManager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Kurnool Depot vs. S.S.Reddy JamalReddy wherein the Division Bench held as follows:

“It is now a well-settled principle of law that a judgment cannot be read as astatute and must be read reasonably and in its entirety. The word‘reinstatement’ carries with it a definite meaning viz., the workman shall bedeemed to be continuing in service without any break whatsoever. Thelogical corollary of it would be that he would continue in service as if hisservices have never been terminated. The Court while granting discretionaryrelief may or may not grant back wages although, normally, the rule is whena direction for reinstatement is given back wages is also directed therein.Thus, the direction for reinstatement of the workman must be read in theaforementioned context that except the back wages and attendant benefits,he was entitled to all other benefits to which he became entitled to by way ofhis reinstatement without break in service.”

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed a decision in anunreported judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in ViceChairman & Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C. Mushirabad,Hyderabad vs. N.Ragareddi covered by Writ Appeal No.395 of1996, while confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge ofthis Court in W.P.No.11182 of 1992, held as follows:

“When a certain person is reinstated with back wages or without backwages, he has to be above his next junior and placed in the time scale ofpay with all admissible emoluments including allowances at the level offitment after reinstatement.”

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted thatwhen the 1[st] respondent used the word ‘reinstatement’ it shall meanas taking him into the service and not a fresh appointment. In ajudgment rendered by this Court in W.P.11239 of 2004, following thejudgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.395 of 1996, dated19.06.1996, it was held that in view of the wording used by the 1[st]respondent as ‘reinstatement’ the period from the date of removal tothe date of ‘reinstatement’ shall be treated as on duty. The learnedcounsel for the petitioner by taking the aid of the above decisionsrequested this Court to hold that the reinstatement made by the 1[st]respondent is not a fresh appointment, but, it is nothing butreinstatement of the petitioner into service.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed thesubmissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that it shall be treated only as a fresh appointment as onthe simple ground of the 1[st] respondent using the word‘reinstatement’ shall not be given the liberal interpretation and it shallbe restricted by taking into consideration the view of the authority intotality without isolating the word ‘reinstatement’.

7. But in the light of the judgments of a Division Bench and a SingleBench of this Court and in view of the circumstances explained bythe counsel for the petitioner, the order of the 1[st] respondent isdirected to be modified as follows:

“The petitioner is reinstated into service without back wages. Theperiod from the date of removal from service till the date ofreinstatement shall never be treated as continuity of service butwhatever service he rendered prior to the date of removal shall beadded to his service for the purpose of extending the benefits towhich the petitioner is entitled according to the rules”.

8. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

dsr

_________

27.12.2004

To:

1. The Regional Manager, Medak Region,APSRTC, Sangareddy, Medak District

2. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot,Sangareddy, Medak District

3. The Depot Manager, APSRTC,Bus Depot, Narayankhed, Medak District

4. Two CD copies.