Telangana High Court
WP/27367/2005 of S.C. N. Valli S/o Meeravalli Vs Managing Director, APSRTC., Musheerabad, Hyderabad on 28 December 2005
MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27367 of 2005 Dated 28-12-2005 Between: S.C. N. Valli S/o Meeravalli Mydukur Depot, Mydukur, Kadapa District ..... PETITIONER AND Managing Director, APSRTC., Musheerabad, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 27367 of 2005
Dated 28-12-2005
Between:
S.C. N. Valli S/o Meeravalli Mydukur Depot, Mydukur, Kadapa District
AND
..... PETITIONER
Managing Director, APSRTC., Musheerabad, Hyderabad
.....RESPONDENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO. 27367 of 2005
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 petitioner was employed as a Driver in the A.P.S.R.T.C in the year 1986. Hewas rendered medically unfit, with effect from 30-06-2005, before he atttained the age of superannuation. Petitioner contends thatthe action of the respondent is illegal and arbitrary, inasmuch as the respondent hasnot extended the benefit of any alternative employment, or other monetory benefits.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for therespondent.
The A.P.S.R.T.C. issued a circular dated 08-10-2003, providing for a set of benefits,for the Drivers, who are rendered medically unfit. It could not be enforcedimmediately, since the Government did not accord its approval. The Governmenthad since accorded the approval through their order dated 24-06-2005.Consequently, the Corporation also issued a circular dated 26-08-2005, providingvarious kinds of benefits. The petitioner is entitled to be extended such benefits.There is no justification on the part of the respondent in not extending the same.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent to consider the caseof the petitioner in terms of the circular dated 26-08-2005, and extend the benefitsthereunder, to the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
Dt.28-12-2005