Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/31902/2022 of M.V.V.S.N.D.R.M.RAO Vs THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION on 11 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 12 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 31902/2022 BETWEEN: 1. M.V.V.S.N.D.R.M.RAO, S/ OCC: CONDUCTOR, E.N DEPOT, TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD
APHC010521102022
IN THE H
(
WEDNESDA
THE HONOURABLE S
WRIT
BETWEEN:
1. M.V.V.S.N.D.R.M.R
OCC: CONDUCTO
DEPOT, TADEPALL
1. THE
ANDHRA
CORPORATION, R
DIRECTOR, NEHR
VIJAYAWADA, KRIS
2. THE REGIONAL M
TRANSPORT COR
BHIMAVARAM.
3. THE DEPOT MAN
TRANSPORT
CO
TADEPALLIGUDEM
4. THE STATE OF AN
SECRETARY,
TR
BUILDING,
SECR
GUNTUR DISTRICT
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
AY, THE 12th DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR
T PETITION No. 31902/2022
RAO, S/o.SIVA RAMAYYA, AGE.52
R, E.No.376248, APSRTC TADEPALLI
LIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRIC
...PETI
AND
PRADESH
STATE
ROAD
TRAN
EP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MAN
RU BUS STAND, APSRTC BUS CO
SHNA DISTRICT.
MANAGER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE
RPORATION, WEST GODAVARI R
NAGER, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE
ORPORATION,
TADEPALLIGUDEM
M, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
NDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PR
RANSPORT
DEPARTMENT,
SECRE
RETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI,
AMARA
T.
...RESPOND
R RAO
YEARS,
IGUDEM
CT.
TIONER
NSPORT
NAGING
OMPLEX,
E ROAD
REGION,
E ROAD
DEPOT,
INCIPAL
ETARIAT
AVATHI,
DENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue the writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ by declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the orders No.
P3/660 (05)/2000- RM.WG, Dated 8-5-2007 and also in issuing consequential recover order No. LC1/876-15(4)/2007-RM/WG, Dated.
17.06.2019 issued by 2nd respondent in spite of knowing the fact that the subject matter has attained finality in W.P. No. 12040 of 2007 and batch is as illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction and consequently declare that the order No.P3/255 (02)/2003-RM-WG. District dt.30-08-2003
issued for decasualization and preponement of placement of time scale from 31- 07-1996 to 12-08-1991 are perfectly legal and justified and set aside the above said impugned order No. P3/660 (05)/2000-RM.WG, dated. 08- 05-2007 and further more the consequential recovery order No. LC1/876-15(4)/2007-RM/WG, dated 17-06-2019 by directing the respondents to pay all consequential service monetary benefits including arrears and pass such other order or orders.
IA NO: 1 OF 2022
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.SREEMANNARAYANA VATTIKUTI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC
2.GP FOR SERVICES II
The Court made the following:
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 2nd respondent issued orders dated 08.05.2007 to the petitioner stating that the petitioner is not eligible for preponement of placement of ‘time scale’ from 31.07.1996 to 12.08.1991, the date of placement of ‘time scale’ of the petitioner was restored to 31.07.1996 and regulated, pay and increments. An order for recovery of money of Rs.81,199/- was issued through proceedings because the petitioner is not eligible to prepone the effective date of the time scale placement.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that questioning the restoration of date of placement of time scale of the petitioner to 31.07.1996, the petitioner herein previously filed W.P. No.11432 of 2007 along with other employees, challenging the proceedings dated 08.05.2007 and the common High Court took a view that since the recover orders were not yet issued, it is premature to set aside the impugned order dated 08.05.2007 and dismissed the Writ Petition, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court once again after consequential recovery orders issued. Now, the respondents have issued recovery orders vide proceedings dated 17.06.2019. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that several writ petitions came to be filed before the Common High Court in W.P. Nos.12040 of 2007, 12339 of 2007 and batch, and the Court has set aside the proceedings memo No.P3/660(05)/2000-RM-WG dated 08.05.2007. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner requested this Court to extend the same to the petitioner.
4. Based on the above said order of common High Court, a Coordinate Bench of this Court passed an order in W.P. No.8411 of 2021, dated 08.08.2024, directing not to effect the recovery proceedings. The counsel further stated that the order in W.P. No.12040 of 2007 has attained finality as no intra Court appeal is filed.
5. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed counter affidavits and stated that the recovery was not effected due to the filing of W.P. No.11743 of 1997 by the petitioner and others.
6. Considering the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.8411 of 2021, 08.08.2024, basing on the orders dated 04.10.2018 in W.P. No.12040 of 2007, the present writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order No.P3/660(05)/2000-RM:WG, dated 08.05.2007 of the 2nd respondent and consequently recovery order No.LC1/876-15(4)/2007-RM/WG, dated 17.06.2019, is hereby set aside. However, no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 12.08.2026 Harin
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
W.P.No. 31902 of 2022
Date: 12-08-2026
Harin