Telangana High Court
WA/1959/2013 of The Divisional Manager, Vs B.Venkataiah, on 30 December 2013
G.CHANDRAIAH & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT APPEAL No. 1959 of 2013 DATE: 30.12.2013 Between: The Divisional Manaager, APSRTC The Depot Manager, APSRTC .. Appellants and B. Venkataiah .. Respondent/ Writ petitioner JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.
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 G.CHANDRAIAH
&
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT APPEAL No. 1959 of 2013
DATE: 30.12.2013
Between:
The Divisional Manaager, APSRTC
The Depot Manager, APSRTC ..
Appellants
and
B. Venkataiah .. Respondent/
Writ petitioner
JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G. Chandraiah)
This writ appeal is directed against the order dated01.08.2012 passed in W.P.No.23552 of 2012.
The writ petitioner, who was a Driver on contract basisin the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road TransportCorporation (APSRTC), was terminated from service on19.02.2011 on the ground of misconduct. His appeal beforethe Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Charminar Region,however resulted in his being re-engaged as a contractDriver afresh. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the denialof continuity of service, attendant and consequential servicebenefits including regularization owning to his beingappointed afresh, filed the writ petition seeking; “To declare the action of the 1[st] respondent therein innot ordering re-engagement with continuity of service ofthe petitioner as contract Driver, as bad, arbitrary andillegal as his termination is against the circular issuedby the Corporation, and consequently, direct therespondents to treat the 1[st] respondent’s proceedingsdated 27.04.2011 as reinstatement of the petitioner asDriver with continuity of service, attendant benefits andwith all consequential service benefits includingregularization.”
This Court, by order dated 01.08.2012, disposed of the writpetition in the same terms of an order dated 29.09.2012passed in W.P.No. 2786 of 2012 and batch directing the respondents therein, who are the appellants herein, toextend the benefit of continuity of service to the petitionerfrom the date of termination till the date of his re-engagement except for the period during which he wasabsent. This continuity of service shall however, be withoutmonetary benefit and shall be counted only for the purposeof regularization at a later date. Being aggrieved by theorder in the W.P.No. 23552 of 2012, the present Writ Appealis filed by the appellants – Corporation.
During the course of arguments, the learned StandingCounsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. appearing for the appellants hasfairly submitted that similar Writ Appeals preferred by theAndhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation againstthe same view as taken by the learned Single Judge inW.P.No.23552 of 2012 were dismissed by a Division Benchof this Court by a common order dated 31.07.2013 inW.A.No.1665 of 2012 and batch, and this appeal is alsosquarely covered by that common order.
In view of the fair submission made by the learnedStanding Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State RoadTransport Corporation and following the common orderdated 31.07.2013 passed in W.A.No. 1665 of 2012 andbatch, the present Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as tocosts.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the Writ Appeal,Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall standdisposed of as infructuous.
_________________
G. CHANDRAIAH, J
30.12.2013
____________________________
M. SATYANARAYANA
MURTHY,J
bcj