Allowed

Pandranki Gopala Rao v. The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Nov 2024WP/21041/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APSRTC driver declared medically unfit and later posted as Shramik sought salary for the interim period. Following an identical Division Bench order, the court directed the Corporation to release Shramik-rate wages for 08.08.2009 to 09.03.2011 within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to release wages for 08.08.2009 to 09.03.2011 as applicable to Shramik post within six weeks; no costs.

Pandranki Gopala Rao Vs The A.P. State Road… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 21041 OF 2014

¶6

Between:

¶7

Pandranki Gopala Rao, S/o Janaki Aged 52 years, Occu:E-455657, shramik, APSRTC Salur Depot, R/o Rama Colony Salur, Vizianagaram^District.

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep., by its Vice-Chairman & Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶11

The Regional Manager, APSRTC, NEC Region, Vizianagaram

¶12

The Depot Manager, APSRTC Salur Depot, Salur Vizianagaram^District

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not treating the petitioner as in^{continuousservicewith} all consequential benefits and not paying salary for the period from 8.8.2009 to 9.3.2011 as illegal and arbitrary and further direct the respondents to pay salary to the for the period from^{8.8.2009to9.3.2011}

¶15

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 26386 OF 2014)

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be

¶17

¶18

pleased to direct the respondents to pay salary to^{thefortheperiodfrom} 8.8.2009 to 9.3.2011

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI TADDI SOWMYA NAIDU

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: ARUN KUMAR LATHKER (SC^FOR APSRTC)

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

APHC010006892014

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶24

[3457]

¶25

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶26

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 21041/2014

¶30

Between:

¶31

Pandranki Gopala Rao ...PETITIONER

¶32

AND

¶33

The A P State Road Transport Corporation and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶35

1.TADDI SOWMYA NAIDU

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶37

1.ARUN KUMAR LATHKER(SC FOR APSRTC)

¶38

The Court made the following:

Order-

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶44

The petitioner is challenging the denial of the salary for the period from 08.08.2009 to 09.03.2011 whereby the respondents denied the payment of salary to the petitioner. The petitioner was employed as a driver on daily wages on 12.09.1987. The services of the petitioner were regularized on 22.09.1987. The petitioner was declared medically unfit for A1 category, driver vide proceedings dated 07.08.2009 thereafter the petitioner was put on off duty.

¶45

The competent medical officer has certified the petitioner^asunfitasA1 category driver. Thereafter on the persistence of the petitioner for alternative employment, the respondents posted the petitioner as Shramik on 07.03.2011. The petitioner is claiming the salary for the period from 08.08.2009 to 09.03.2011.

¶46

The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.571 of 2014 whereby in an identical case the Writ Appeal preferred by the respondents herein was dismissed and the appellants therein were directed to pay the salary to the respondent-employee as may be applicable to the post of Shramik for period from 29.08.2001 to 16.03.2006, within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of that order. The learned Single Judge of this

¶47

¶48

¶49

Court in W.P.No.22199 of 2012 has followed the orders of the Hon’ble Division Bench and passed similar orders.

¶50

The facts are identical in the present case, and the case of the petitioner deserves to be considered. The denial of^{wagesfortheperiod} 08.08.2009 to 09.03.2011 has to be found fault with and following the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. The respondents are hereby directed to release the wages to the petitioner for the period^{08.08.2009to09.03.2011} within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of^{receiptofthisorder,andthe} respondents may release the payment to the petitioner^{asapplicabletothe} post of Shramik for the said period.

¶51

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall^{benoorderasto} costs.

¶52

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,^{shallstandclosed.} Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT! REGISTRAR

¶53

//TRUE COPY//

¶54

SECTim OFFICER

¶55

To 1. The Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Vijayawada

¶56

The Regional Manager, APSRTC, NEC Region, Vizianagaram

¶57

The Depot Manager, APSRTC Salur Depot, Salur Vizianagaram^District

¶58

One CC to M/s. Taddi Sowmya Naidu, Advocate [OPUC]

¶59

One CC to Sri Arun Kumar Lathker, SC for APSRTC. [OPUO

¶60

Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED: 20/11/2024

ORDER

WP.No.21041 of 2014

m
X 10 DEC 202'! «»
^ Current Section ^
Sif>.esPATCV^^Sf»^

¶67

V#;

¶68

ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Pandranki Gopala Rao v. The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandranki Gopala Rao v. The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.C. Narayana Swamy, Ananthapur Dist. Vs Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Kadapa Dist. and Another

Srm M.Appalakonda, Visakhapatnam Vs Chairman, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Chennai & 2 Others

G. Ramesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Chilakala Venkata Krishnaiah Vs The Kadapa District Cooperative Central Bank Limited

G. Raju, Vs Govt. of A.P.

B.S. Ananda, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh