Allowed

B.Yeruka Naidu v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Dec 2024WP/37033/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order of retirement based on an altered date of birth. Noting the petitioner had been reinstated and served until superannuation, the court ordered payment of the specific financial differential caused by the elapsed service period between the initial and actual retirement dates.

What did the court decide?

Reinstatement order implicit; Respondents directed to pay difference of Rs. 1,13,114 for the period 30.04.2017 to 31.12.2018 within 8 weeks.

B.Yeruka Naidu Vs Andhra Pradesh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

'4*

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER i TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 37033 OF 2017

¶7

Between:

¶8

B.Yeruka Naidu, S/o Chinna, 57 years, E. 452866, Driver, Resident of Vaddi Street, SALUR-53559, Vizianagarama District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, RTC House, Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada.

¶12

The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., North East Coastal Region, Vizianagaram.

¶13

The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Salur Depot, Vizianagarama^District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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, or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Office Order No: P2/756( )/17-SLR dated 18.10.2017 including the notice No:P1/255(01)/17- SLR dated 18.10.2017 retiring the petitioner from service with effect from 30.04.2017 by altering the^{recordeddateofbirthof} 03.12.1960 to that of 29.04.1959 is without jurisdiction, arbitrary, unjust, in violation of Principles of Natural Justice, contrary to APSRTC Employee's (Service) Regulations, 1964, discriminatory and in^violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of Constitution of India set-aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents to continue the petitioner in service up to 31.12.2018 as per the date of birth recorded at the time of

¶16

appointment i.e., 03.12.1960, with all consequential benefits including the salary for the period kept out of service ,in the interest of justice and fair play.

¶17

I.A. NQ: 1 OF 2017fWPI/IP. NO: 45991 OF 20171

¶18

'Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances

¶19

stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim suspension of the office order No. P2/756( )/17SLR dated 18.10.2017, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶21

Between:

¶22

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, RTC House, Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada.

¶23

The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., North East Coastal Region, Vizianagaram.

¶24

The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Salur Depot, Vizianagarama^District.

¶25

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶26

AND

¶27

B.Yeruka Naidu, S/o Chinna, 57 years, E. 452866, Driver, Resident of Vaddi Street, SALUR-53559, Vizianagarama District.

¶28

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶29

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 pleased to vacate the interim order passed in WP.MP.No.45991 of 2017 i n W.P.No.37033/2017 dated 06.11.2017.

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. G. SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI T. VINOD KUMAR, SC FOR

¶31

APSRTC

¶32

The Court made the following: ORDER

[3333]

APHC010879462017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶37

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶38

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶39

PRESENT

¶40

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶41

WRIT PETITION NO: 37033/2017

Between:

B.Yeruka Naidu

...PETITIONER

AND

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and^{2...RESPONDENT(S)} others

¶47

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶48

1 .A G SATYANARAYANA RAO

¶49

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶50

1 .VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC)

¶51

¶52

The Court made the following:

¶53

¶54

ORDER

¶55

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the^{ConstitutionofIndia}

¶56

seeking the following relief:-

¶57

“....to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction^{moreparticularlyonein} the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Office^{OrderNo.P2/756/17-} SLR dated 18.10.2017 including the notice No:P1/255(01)/17-SLR dated 18.10.2017 retiring the petitioner from service with^{effectfrom30.04.2017by} altering the recorded date of birth of 03.12.1960 to^{thatof29.04.1959} is without Jurisdiction, arbitrary, unjust, in violation of Principles of Natural Justice, contrary to APSRTC Employee’s (Service) Regulations, 1964, discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 and Article^{21ofConstitutionof} India, set-aside the same and consequently direct the^Respondents to continue the petitioner in service up to 31.12.2018^{asperthedateofbirth} recorded at the time of appointment i.e., 03.12.1960,^{withallconsequential} benefits including the salary for the period kept out^{ofservice...”}

¶58

this Court 2. On 06.11.2017, when the matter came up for admission,

¶59

passed the following interim order:

¶60

“.. .Balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner.

¶61

Hence, there shall be interim suspension of the office order No:P1/255(01)/17-SLR, dated 18.10.2017, pending disposal^ofthe writ petition. ”

¶62

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned^{StandingCounsel} furnished a copy of instructions of the Law Officer,^{A.P.S.R.T.C.,Vijayawada,} dated 02.12.2024, wherein it is stated that the petitioner^{retiredfromservice} with effect from 30.04.2017, based on his self declaration, according to which, his date of birth is 29.04.1959. However, in pursuance^{oftheinterimorder} granted by this Court, the petitioner was reinstated^{andcontinuedinservicetill}

¶63

¶64

/ /"

¶65

31.12.2018, and his salary was also paid for the period from 01.05.2017 to 31.12.2018. It is further stated that, though the entire terminal benefits were paid to the petitioner, the difference in the amount, based on the retirement date of 30.04.2017 and the actual date of retirement on 31.12.2018 amounting to Rs. 1,13,114/was not paid.

¶66

In view of the fact that the petitioner was reinstated into service and continued till the date of attaining the age of superannuation i.e., 31.12.2018, the writ petition is allowed by directing the respondents to pay difference of amount of Rs. 1,13,114/payable to the petitioner for the period from 30.04.2017 to 31.12.2018, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Petition shall stand

¶67

closed.

¶68

That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Dhiraj Singh Thakur on this Thursday, Fifth day of December, Two Thousand and Twenty Four.

¶69

Sd/- K.KASI RAO ACHARI //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶70

To,

¶71

SECTION OFFICER

¶72

The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, RTC House, Pandit Nehru Bus station, Vijayawada.

¶73

The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., North East Coastal Region, Vizianagaram.

¶74

The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Salur Depot, Vizianagarama^District.

¶75

One CC to Sri A. G. Satyanarayana Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶76

One CC to Sri T. Vinod Kumar, SC for APSRTC[OPUC]

¶77

Three CD Copies.

ssb

HIGH COURT

DATED:05/12/2024

ORDER

WP.No.37033 of 2017

o%
X 0 5 MAR ?n75 *9/
^ . Curreni oecuuii . /

¶84

ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

B.Yeruka Naidu v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Yeruka Naidu v. Andhra Pradesh 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.Shiva Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal

K.Padmavathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Guttula Venugopalam Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P.N.Rasool, Vs The a.P.State Road Transport Corporation

Guvvala Govindu, Kurnool Dist & Another Vs Prl Secy, Panchayat Raj & Rural Devp Dept., Hyd & 8 Ot

S.R.Moorthy, Chittoor Dist Vs Vc & Md, Apsrtc, Hyd & 2 Others