Allowed

K. Shyam Kumar, v. The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager

Telangana HC2 Nov 2011WP/22409/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition filed by a contract driver seeking reinstatement with continuity of service. Relying on a previous judgment, the Court directed that the petitioner be entitled to service continuity from termination to reengagement but denied monetary benefits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner entitled to continuity of service from termination to reengagement; no monetary benefits granted.

K. Shyam Kumar, Vs The Deputy Chief… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.22409 OF 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking issue of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondent No.1 in not ordering reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service as contract Driver is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable as the termination of the petitioner is against the principles of natural justice and against the circulars issued by the Corporation, consequently direct the respondents to treat the proceedings of the 1^st respondent dated 15.2.2010 as reinstatement of the petitioner as a Driver with continuity of service, attendant benefits with all consequential service benefits including regularization.

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Driver on contract basis on 5.4.2007 through a regular selection process and he was terminated from services by an order dated 13.6.2008 on the allegations of absenteeism for 7 days from 28.5.2008 to 3.6.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal along with medical certificate before the 1^st respondent explaining the reasons for his absence as due to his ill health of suffering from serious viral fever. The 1^st respondent having considered the same ordered reinstatement of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 15.2.2010 as a fresh contract Driver and consequently the petitioner has been reinstated into service and the petitioner is performing duties as a contract Driver. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have prepared a list of candidates for regularization of the services of the contract Drivers; that his juniors were also placed in the said list,

¶7

but unfortunately, due to the Order of his reinstatement without mentioning the continuity of service by the respondents, his name was not considered for regularization. Therefore, aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been preferred.

¶8

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief sought for by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 16.12.2010 in Writ Petition No. 31726 of 2010. A copy of the said order is appended along with the material of the Writ Petition. The petitioner therein, who was appointed as a contract Driver on contract basis in A.P.S.R.T.C. was removed from service on the ground of unauthorized absence from duties for the period from 3.4.2007 to 21.5.2007.

¶9

This Court in Writ Petition No. 31726 of 2010 by an order dated 16.12.2010 has passed the following order:

¶10

“Identical issue was dealt with by this Court in W.P.No. 8090 of 2010. Though an order, dated 12-04-2010, this Court held that the contractual employees, who are reengaged on the orders of removal being set aside, are entitled for the benefit of past service.

¶11

Following the same, the Writ Petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the service between the date of termination and the date of reengagement. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits on account of this relief. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶12

The facts of the in the above referred case and the facts in the case on hand are similar and identical. Therefore, following the said judgment, this Writ Petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the continuity of service between the date of termination and the date of reengagement. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits on account of this relief.

¶13

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. There

¶14

shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

G.CHANDRAIAH, J.

¶16

2^nd November, 2011

¶17

CHV.

K. Shyam Kumar, v. The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Shyam Kumar, v. The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Premnath Vs The District Collector and Chairman, Mission for

P.Swamy Vs The Deputy chief Traffic Manager,Apsrtc Nalgonda Region

Md. Abdul Mannan Vs The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director

Patnala Kumar Vs The Vizianagaram Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Gadipe Surya Chandra Bhaskara Tarzan, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

P.Santosh Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh,rep.by Principal Secretary