Allowed

B.Srinivasa Rao, W.G Dist v. the Regional Office, W.G Dist and Another

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Dec 2023WP/3439/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court held that keeping a driver's service in abeyance due to a disputed driving license was illegal after acquittal and official confirmation of the license's genuineness. The court directed regularisation but denied back wages.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be treated as on duty from 20.11.1998 to 12.04.2003 for service benefits; no back wages granted.

B.Srinivasa Rao, W.G Dist Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.3439 of 2008

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was engaged as driver by the respondents in the year 1996. The petitioner was selected for the post of driver in the year 1996, however, he was appointed as a casual driver on 11.03.1997. On 20.11.1998, while the petitioner was on duty at Tadepallygudem, a show-cause notice of termination was issued to the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner does not possess genuine driving license. On the said ground, petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 16.12.1997. A criminal case vide CC.No.30/1997 was filed against the petitioner on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem, alleging that the petitioner has submitted driving license which is not genuine. The petitioner filed appeal and review before the respondents and the Reviewing authority modified the order of removal and directed the 2^nd respondent to engage the petitioner on daily basis on 12.04.2003. The petitioner’s services were regularised on 01.08.2004. The petitioner’s services were kept

¶5

Page 2 of 5

¶6

in abeyance from 20.11.1998 to 12.04.2003, on account of the petitioner alleged to have submitted a non-genuine driving license bearing D.L.No.4875/85.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the office of the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Eluru issued a letter dated 12.10.2000, whereby the appropriate authority had endorsed that the driving license of the petitioner was genuine. However, there was some lacking on part of the Transport Commissioner in not updating their records. However, the certificate issued by the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Eluru would clarify the ambiguity in so far as the allegation against the petitioner that he has submitted a non-genuine driving license is concerned, the petitioner was also acquitted in the criminal case filed against him. Learned counsel would further submit that on account of the mistake of a third party, the petitioner’s continuity of service is being affected which will have severe impact on the retirement benefits. Thus, prays this Court to allow the writ petition.

¶8

Page 3 of 5

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit bringing to the notice of the Court the factum of the respondents issuing show-cause notice on the premise that the petitioner had submitted a non-genuine driving license. Learned counsel also draws the attention of this Court to the various paragraphs of the counter and would submit that writ petition deserves to be dismissed as there is no fault of the respondent-Corporation and they have acted as per law.

¶10

Considering the submissions of learned counsel appearing for both the parties and taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances, it is no doubt established that the petitioner has not submitted any fake or fabricated or non-genuine driving license at the time of employment, as such keeping his service in abeyance from 20.11.1998 till 12.04.2003 would be illegal and not permissible in law.

¶11

In view of the same, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as on duty from 20.11.1998 till 12.04.2003 for all service benefits. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not be

¶12

Page 4 of 5

¶13

entitled for any back wages for the said period. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶15

shall stand dismissed.

¶16

________________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N

Date: 22.12.2023 KAS

Page 5 of 5

164

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.3439 of 2008

¶22

Date: 22.12.2023 KAS

B.Srinivasa Rao, W.G Dist v. the Regional Office, W.G Dist and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Srinivasa Rao, W.G Dist v. the Regional Office, W.G Dist and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Venkata Ramana Reddy Vskp Vs Chairman Vskp Port Trust Vskp and Another

The Executive Engineer, Apsrtc., Kadapa Dist. Vs B. Hussain at Hussain Sab, Anantapur, and Anr.

Sri M. Bheema Reddy, Pakala, Chittoor Dist Vs the Executive Officer, Ttd, Tirupathi, Chittoor District

R.v.S.G.Krishnudu, Vs M.D.Transmission Corp. of Ap Ltd.

B.Venkateswara Rao, Guntur. Vs the Dy.Registrar of Co.Op.Societies, Guntur and Ano

B. Satyam Vs the Govt of Ap., Rep by Secy.