This order dismissed a writ petition challenging an administrative order directing disabled conductors to resume regular duties. The court held the petition infructuous as respondents admitted petitioners are now performing duties without objection after filing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
Dated 1-4-2010
WRIT PETITION No.1784 OF 2004
Between:
S. Radha Krishna and another.
…Petitioners.
And:
The A.P.S.R.T.C. represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others.
……Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
WRIT PETITION No.1784 OF 2004
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in directing the petitioners to work as Conductors on line by withdrawing the out of designation duties at Bus Pass Section vide Proc.No.P3/255 (09)/2000-RM/K, Vijayawada, dated 3-6-2003 and Proc.No.P3/813 (01)/2003-RM/K, Vijayawada dated 3-6-2003 is contrary to the Disability Certificate issued by the Head Quarters Hospital and contrary to their own proceedings dated 26-12-2000 and dated 7-9-2002 and after 8 and 12 years of service put in by the petitioners at Bus Pass Section directing them to do duties on line in spite of their disability as illegal, unreasonable, unsustainable and as such liable to be set aside.
The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows:
The 1st petitioner was appointed as conductor in 1994
and subsequently, his services were regularized in the year 1996 and from the date of his appointment, his services were utilized in Bus Pass Section of the Depot since his right hand is having physical deformity and not useful for normal functioning. After medical examination, the competent doctor assessed the disability as 90% and accordingly, the then officers after seeing the certificate as well as the physical appearance of the right hand of the 1st petitioner, he was allowed to do duties in Bus Pass Section from 1994 onwards and when some officer objected for the same in the year 2000, he approached the then VC & MD, who directed the then Regional Manager, vide letter dated 3-11-2000 by instructing him to direct the concerned Depot Manager vide letter dated 26-12-2000 to utilize the services of the 1st petitioner in Bus Pass Section and accordingly, he is continuing in the Bus Pass Section as on today and from the date of appointment, he never worked on line as conductor, but now the 2nd respondent herein issued proceedings dated 3-6-2003 directing the petitioners to work online duties by withdrawing the out of designation duties w.e.f. 26-11-2003, which is unjust and arbitrary.
The 2nd petitioner herein was also appointed as Conductor by the duly constituted Selection Committee in the year 1990 and his services were regularized with effect from 2-8-1991 and as he was also orthopedically handicapped having effected with paralysis to his right leg, his services were also utilized in Bus Pass Section. When the 3rd respondent herein orally directed him to go on line, he approached the then Regional Manager and on his application, vide Proceeding Dated 7-9-2002, the Regional Manager directed the 3rd respondent herein to utilize the services of the 2nd petitioner in Bus Pass Section and as on today, he is working in the 3rd respondent Depot in Bus Pass Section, but now the 2nd respondent herein issued proceedings dated 3-6-2003 directing the petitioners to work on line duties by
withdrawing the out of designation duties w.e.f. 26-11-2003, which is unjust and arbitrary.
On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit has been filed stating that the 1st petitioner has submitted an application to the 1st respondent on 3-11-2000 requesting to provide out of designation duties in view of handicappedness to his right hand and on that, the 1st respondent permitted to utilize out of designation duty and accordingly, the 1st petitioner was allotted with out of designation duties at Bus Pass Section w.e.f. 26-12-2000. Since no specific period was mentioned for his out of designation duty, case was processed to the Executive Director for the period to which the 1st petitioner has to be utilized and the Executive Director has ordered to utilize the services of the petitioner on out of designation duty upto 26-11-2003 only. Accordingly, a letter was issued from the office of the Regional Manager to the Depot Manager, Governorpet.I, vide No.P3/255 (9)/2000-RM:KR dated 2-6-2003 to utilize the services of the petitioner on out of designation upto 26-11-2003 and direct him on line w.e.f. 27-11-2003 duly withdrawing the out of designation duty.
It is further stated that the 2nd petitioner has submitted an application to the 1st respondent on 6-8-2002 requesting to provide out of designation duties in view of his handicappedness to his right leg due to polio. As per the orders of the 1st respondent, the petitioner was transferred and posted to Governorpet-I Depot vide office order No.P3/813 (4)/02-RM:KR dated 7-9-2002, to utilize his services at Bus Pass Section on out of designation. Since no specific period was mentioned for his out of designation duty, a case was processed to Executive Director for the period to which the petitioner has to be utilized on out of designation duties. The Executive Director has ordered to utilize the petitioner on out of
designation duty upto 26-11-2003. Accordingly a letter was issued from the office to the Depot Manager, Governorpet, I vide No.P3/813 (1)/2003-RM:KR dated 2-6-2003 to utilize the services of the petitioner on out of designation upto 26-11-2003 and direct him on line w.e.f. 27-11-2003 duly withdrawing the out of designation duty.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. and perused the material available on record.
This writ petition was admitted on 3-2-2004. On 19-42008, in W.P.M.P.No.2318 of 2004 in W.P.No.1784 of 2004, this Court passed the following order:
“Learned counsel for the petitioner states that after filing the writ petition, the cases of petitioners were considered and they are being continued in service as of now.
In view of the same, this petition has become infructuous and hence, it is dismissed.
Registry is directed to post the writ petition for final hearing immediately after Dasara Vacation, 2008 high up in the list.”
The record goes to show that on 3-6-2003, the Personal Officer, Office of the Regional Manager, Vijayawada, passed the following order:
“Further to this office order 1st cited, this is to inform that the Executive Director (V&V)/Hyderabad vide reference 2nd cited has accorded permission to utilize the services of Sri S.R.Krishna, E.392782, Conductor at Bus Pass Section, Governorpet-I Depot upto 26-112003.”
The grievance of the petitioners is that originally, they were appointed as conductors but by virtue of their physical disability and subsequently, they made a representation to the authorities
concerned to post them on line duties to be performed out of designation duties and the same was considered and subsequently, by virtue of impugned order, their services were withdrawn from the out of designation duties. Therefore, questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.
Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation submits that the said proceedings are temporary in nature and consequent to the filing of the writ petition, the petitioners joined duty and performed duties without any objection. Therefore, no orders need to be passed.
Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed in the post of conductors and because of their disability, on their request, their services were permitted to be utilized out of designation duty and were directed to work in Bus Pass Section. Having regard to the nature of disability of the petitioners, it is always open for the authorities to take their duties in the manner which the authorities desire.
It is brought to the notice of this Court that consequent to the filing of this Writ Petition, the petitioners are performing their duties without any objection.
Keeping in view of the fact that the petitioners were appointed to the post of conductors and proceedings in question issued are only administrative in nature and consequent to the filing of the writ petition, they are performing the duties without any objection, I am of the view that no orders need be passed in this Writ Petition.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is closed. No costs.
__________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
Dated 1-4-2010.
Dvs
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
WRIT PETITION No.1784 OF 2004
Dated 1-4-2010
1 issue framed by the court
Whether proceedings directing petitioners with disabilities to resume designated line duties after temporary accommodation ended require judicial intervention.
S. Radha Krishna
A.P.S.R.T.C.
G. Chandraiah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
