Disposed¶64

S K Babu v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Aug 2025WP/8416/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No. 8416 of 2019 (APHC010194792019), S. K Babu v. APSRTC and others, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, decided 05-08-2025 by Justice B V L N Chakravarthi - back wages to medically retired APSRTC workman provided alternative employment as Shramik; impugned rejection proceedings set aside applying K. Moses v. APSRTC, W.P.No.3031 of 2008 (2011 (1) ALD 823); Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 S.20(4); Art. 226; disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings No.DS(P)/785 (36)/2007-RM/NLR dt.12.10.2018 set aside; 2nd respondent directed to pay back wages from the date of retirement (medically unfit) till reinstatement in the post of Shramik; Writ Petition disposed of with no order as to costs. ¶64

S K Babu Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who was kept out of service on medical grounds and provided alternative employment as Shramik, is entitled to financial benefits (including salaries/back wages) for the out-of-employment period till reinstatement, notwithstanding the impugned proceedings rejecting his claim for Driver post service benefits.

¶53

Court's answer

The petitioner, who was provided the alternative post of Shramik, is entitled to all financial benefits from the date on which he retired as declared medically unfit, till his reinstatement.

¶62

Ratio / Principle

The impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent are set aside.

¶63

Key takeaways

The 2nd respondent is directed to pay back wages to the petitioner from his retirement from service on the ground of being medically unfit, till reinstatement in the post of Shramik.ratio¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law - APSRTC employee (Mechanic, Rapur Depot) retired on medical grounds and given alternative employment as Shramik - proceedings No.DS(P)/785 (36)/2007-RM/NLR dt.12.10.2018 of the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nellore Region rejecting claim for Driver post service benefits (notional increments, Driver post annual increment, continuing seniority in Shramik, ELs and sick leaves, 12 and 20 years special grade increments, RPS) and salaries for the out-of-employment period - challenged under Article 226 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Section 20(4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - following the earlier order of this Court in Sri K. Moses v. APSRTC (W.P.No.3031 of 2008, order dt.02.11.2010, 2011 (1) ALD 823), Court held the petitioner entitled to all financial benefits from the date of retirement (declared medically unfit) till reinstatement - impugned proceedings set aside; 2nd respondent directed to pay back wages for that period - Writ Petition disposed of, no costs.

APHC010194792019

SMS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI ^0 ■“-X
(Special Original Jurisdiction) M-S
a
i M i i.')"
TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST OF AUGUST AUGUST

¶5

TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST OF AUGUST AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 8416 OF 7niQ

¶9

Between:

¶10

S. K Babu, aged about 55 years. Mechanic, Rapur Depot, APSRTC, E 515248, Rapur, Nellore Dist., Andhra Pradesh.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its

¶14

Managing Director, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh.

¶15

The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nellore Region Nellore, Nellore Dist AR

¶16

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Rapur depot, Rapur, Nellore Dist.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 writ, order or directions more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 2"'“ respondent NO DS(P)/785 (36)/2007-RM/NLR, dt 12-10-2018 in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for extension of Driver post service benefits such as notional increments, Deriver post annual increment, continuing seniority of the Driver post in shramik, ELs and other sick leaves, not granting 12 and 20 years special grade increments and RPS etc and not payment of Salaries for out of employment period etc as

¶19

illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Section 20 (4) of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and set aside the same with all consequential benefits and further direct the respondents to extend all service benefits of the Driver post in the post Shramik including payment of salaries for out of employment period on re fixation of pay by extending all benefits. LA NO: 1 OF 2niQ Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the atfidavd filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 2" respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner as per the Section 20 (4) of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRI VENKATESWARLU

¶21

SANISETTY, SC FOR APSRTC The Court made the following order:

APHC010194792019

[3368]

SMS

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

¶26

TUESDAY. THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 8416/2019

¶30

Between:

¶31

1.S K BABU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, MECHANIC, RAPUR DEPOT, APSRTC, E 515248, RAPUR, NELLORE DIST. ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶32

...PETITIONER

¶33

AND

¶34

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶35

2.THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, NELLORE REGION NELLORE, NELLORE DIST, AR

¶36

3.THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC RAPUR DEPOT. RAPUR, NELLORE DIST.

¶37

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶39

1.M PITCHAIAH

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent{S):

¶41

1.VENKATESWARLU SANISETTY

¶42

The Court made the following:

¶43

¶44

¶45

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI WRIT PETITION No.8416 0F 2019

¶46

ORDER:

¶47

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶48

of India for the following relief:

¶49

“....to issue writ, order or directions more in the^natureof Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 2nd respondent NO DS(P)/785 (36)/2007-RM/NLR, dt 12-10-2018ⁱⁿ rejecting the claim of the petitioner for extension of Driver post service benefits such as notional increments, Deriver post annual increment, continuing seniority of the Driver post in shramik, ELs and other sick leaves, not granting 12^and20 years special grade increments and RPS etc and not payment of Salaries for out of employment period etc as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Section 20 (4) of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and set aside the same with all consequential benefits and further direct the respondents to extend all service benefits of the Driver post in the post Shramik including payment of salaries for out of employment period on re fixation of pay by extending all benefits and to pass.

¶50

Heard Sri M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned counsel for the Respondents/APSRTC.

¶51

The writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus to declaring the proceedings of the 2'''^ respondent vide No.DS(P)/785 (36)/2007-RM/NLR, dt.12.10.2018 in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for extension of Driver post service benefits such as notional increments, Driver post annual increment, continuing seniority of the Driver post in shramik, ELs and other sick leaves.

¶52

not granting 12 and 20 years special grade increments and RPS etc., and not payment of salaries for out of employment period etc., as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Section 20 (4) of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and consequently to set aside the said proceedings and to direct the respondents to extend all service benefits of the Driver post in the post of Shramik including payment of salaries for out of the employment period on re-fixation of pay by extending all benefits and for such orders.

¶53

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner Sri.M.Pitchaiah would submit that the respondent has provided alternative employment to the petitioner as Shramik, but denied his financial benefits from the period he was kept out of service, till his reinstatement under the impugned proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner filed present writ

¶54

petition. He would submit that the this court in similar circumstances vide Order dated 02.11.2010 in W.P.No.3031 of 2008 in the case of Sri K.Moses Vs. APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others^ held in Para No.29 as follows:

¶55

“The proceedings dated 13.11.2006 and the order dated 14.12.2007 are accordingly set aside. The APSRTC is directed to forthwith provide alternate employment to the petitioner in a suitable post with the same pay scale and service benefits

2011 (1) ALD 823

’^3

enjoyed by him at the time of his retirement from service and if necessary, by creating a supernumerarypost. It is relevant to note that under the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 47 of the Act of 1995, the employer is obligated to create a supernumerary post to accommodate the disabled employee in the event it is not possible to adjust him against any existing post This indicates that such an employee is not to be subjected to a break in service for want of a suitable post being immediately available. The petitioner herein would therefore be entitled to claim continuity of service for all purposes from the date of his so-called retirement from service under the proceedings dated 13.11.2006. As he was deprived of a social welfare benefit statutorily vested in him under the Act of 1995, the APSRTC has no right to deny him the financial benefits for the period that he was deliberately and willfully kept out of its service. The petitioner would therefore be entitled to full back wages from the date of his retirement from service till his reinstatement in a suitable post".

¶60

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner would further^submit that in the light of above order of this Court, the petitioner cannot be denied the financial benefits from the date of so called retirement from service, till re-instatement.

¶61

Learned counsel representing for the respondent/APSRTC would fairly submit that the above order of this Court would say that the employee is entitled to financial benefits for the period that he was kept out of service, till his re-instatement.

¶62

In the light of above order of this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petitioner, who was provided with alternative post of Shramik, is entitled to all financial benefits from the date on which he retired. as declared medically unfit, till his reinstatement.

¶63

Therefore, the impugned proceedings of the 2 nd respondent were set-aside. Hence, the 2''"' respondent is directed to pay back the wages to the petitioner from his retirement from the service on the ground of medically unfit, till reinstatement in the post of Shramik.

¶64