Petitioner sought writ for regularization and counting of past service as a contract conductor. Court distinguished facts from prior case but granted directing counting of past service for regularization only.
Respondents directed to extend benefit of counting of past service for purpose of regularization, not for any other monetary benefit.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
W.P. No.29767 of 2011
Between:
K.Shivaiah
… Petitioner And
The Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad Division, MGBS., Hyderabad and another. … Respondents
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
W.P. No.29767 of 2011
ORDER:
This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of
Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not ordering re-engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as contract Conductor, as bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable as the termination of the petitioner is against the principles of natural justice and against to the Corporation circulars and consequently direct the respondents to treat
1st respondent’s proceedings dated 14.09.2010 as reinstatement of the petitioner as Conductor with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with all consequential service benefits including regularization.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as contract Conductor on 27.04.2009, through a regular selection process and working in Uppal Bus Depot. While so, the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 10.08.2010 on the ground of ticket irregularity. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal to the
1st respondent, Divisional Manager, explaining that due to misplacing of issued ticket to the alleged passenger the allegation has been taken place against him. While considering the said appeal, the 1st respondent ordered for re-engagement of the petitioner vide his proceedings dated 14.09.2010 but there is no wording of fresh contract
conductor and as of now, he is performing his duties.
While the things stood thus, the respondents prepared a list for regularization of services of contract conductors and his juniors were placed in the list and the respondents did not consider the name of the petitioner for regularization. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations leveled against the petitioner was considered and held to be not proved. The appellate authority, while considering the appeal, taken sympathetic view and ordered for re-engagement of the petitioner, without considering the aspect of continuity of service. He also submitted that in similar circumstances,
this Court in W.P. No.22283 of 2011 directed the respondents therein to extend the benefit of counting of past service for the purpose of regularization of service. Therefore, he sought direction to the respondents to extend the similar benefit to the petitioner.
On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the Corporation submits that the facts and circumstances of the present case are different from the facts and circumstances of the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and he would like to file counter.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents Corporation and perused the material on record.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the contract employee of the respondents Corporation and as of now he is working. The only grievance of the petitioner is that his name has not been considered for regularization along with his juniors. The learned counsel for the petitioner filed a copy of the order dated
08.08.2011 passed in 22283 of 2011 as one of the material papers and submitted that the case on hand is squarely covered by the said order. But the learned standing counsel disputed the same and stated that it is not covered.
From a perusal of the order made in W.P. No.22283 of 2011, it is clear that the petitioner therein was engaged as driver by the Corporation on contract basis and his services were terminated on some acts of misconduct. Thereafter, the petitioner therein preferred an appeal wherein, the petitioner was re-engaged.
The grievance of the petitioner therein was that past service was not being counted for the purpose of regularization of service. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case therein, this Court directed the respondents therein to extend the benefit of counting of past service for the purpose of regularization of service and not for any other monetary benefit.
In the instant case also the petitioner is a Conductor, terminated from service on the allegation of cash and ticket irregularities. Aggrieved by which, he filed an appeal wherein, the appellate authority ordered for re-engagement of the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the view that this case is squarely covered by order made in 22283 of 2011 and the petitioner herein is also entitled to the similar relief.
Under those circumstances, the respondents are directed to extend the benefit of counting of past service for the purpose of regularization of service and not for any other monetary benefit. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
Date: 09.11.2011 LSK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, who was re-engaged after termination as a contract conductor, is entitled to the benefit of counting of past service for regularization purposes.
Whether the facts in the present case are similar to those in W.P. No.22283 of 2011 regarding entitlement to past service regularization.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P. No.22283 of 2011Distinguished¶25
K. Shivaiah
The Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad Division
G. Chandraiah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
