Telangana High Court

WP/40951/2014 of G. Thirumalaiah Vs APSRTC, rep. by its MD on 31 December 2014

R.KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.40951 of 2014 Date: 31-12-2014 Between G.Thirumalaiah … Petitioner and APSRTC, Rep. by its MD, Musheerabad, Hyderabad; and 2 others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Writ Petition No.40951 of 2014 Order: Heard Sri P.Govinda

Date: 31-12-2014

Between

G.Thirumalaiah

… Petitioner

and

APSRTC,Rep. by its MD,Musheerabad, Hyderabad;and 2 others … Respondents

Order:

Heard Sri P.Govinda Rajulu, learned counselappearing for the petitioner.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearingfor the petitioner that initially on the charge of cash andticket irregularity, an enquiry was conducted against thepetitioner and thereafter on receiving the enquiry report,final order was passed against him on 22-02-2002imposing punishment of reduction of his basic pay by two incremental stages i.e. from Rs.2,859/- + 55 pp toRs.2,705/- + 55 pp for a period of two years withcumulative effect besides treating the period ofsuspension as not on duty. Thereafter, the petitioner wasreinstated into service by reducing the petitioner’s basicpay by two incremental stages i.e. for a period of twoyears.

3. It is further submitted that while reinstating thepetitioner into service by letter dated 17-9-2001, therespondents-Corporation have reduced his basic pay bytwo incremental stages for a period of two yearspermanently and after completion of one year from thedate of reinstatement, the 3[rd] respondent shall grant thepetitioner the annual increment. But, the 3[rd] respondentreduced his basic pay by two incremental stages and alsodid not allow future increments for two years i.e. for theyears 2001-02 and 2002-03. Thus, according to thepetitioner, four annual increments were deferredpermanently which is not in accordance with thepunishment imposed on him. He made a representationsetting forth his grievance on 05-3-2013, which is nowpending with the 2[nd] respondent.

4. Under these circumstances, the 2[nd] respondent isdirected to consider and dispose of the representationdated 05-3-2013 made by the petitioner within a period of two months duly taking into consideration the punishmentimposed on him by the 3[rd] respondent according to law. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Themiscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petitionshall stand closed. No costs.

31[st] December, 2014.Ak

___________________

R.KANTHA RAO, J.

31[st] December, 2014.(Ak)

Page 1 of 1

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead