Disposed

G.Narasimha Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC9 Nov 2011WP/29791/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to probe the merits of a writ petition challenging an order for recovery of license fee arrears. Instead, it directed the respondents to adjudicate a pending internal appeal filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within six weeks. It also directed the forwarding of such an appeal to the higher authority if not already done.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed; direction to consider pending appeal within six weeks.

G.Narasimha Rao Vs Andhra Pradesh State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

W.P. No.29791 of 2011

Between:

G.Narasimha Rao

… Petitioner And

A.P.S.R.T.C., Mushirabad, Hyderabad, Represented by is Managing Director and others. … Respondents

¶10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶11

W.P. No.29791 of 2011

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 24.11.2009 of the 3^rd respondent in recovering an amount of Rs.55,409.50 ps.,

¶14

from the petitioner towards license fee payable by Sri D.Swamy, Contractor of Expresso Coffee & Tea Staff at JBS Picket, Secunderabad, without resorting to filing of a civil suit though there is limitation up to 29.06.2012, as arbitrary, contrary to law and contrary to regulations and therefore, set aside the same consequently directing the respondents to refund to the petitioner the retirement benefits of Rs.55,409.50 ps., recovered from the petitioner with 9% interest.

¶15

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed as a Booking Clerk on 10.06.1976 and subsequently appointed as Junior Clerk on 31.05.1977. Thereafter, he was promoted as Deputy Superintendent (Personnel) on 08.08.2005 and posted to Vikarabad depot and was transferred to Picket depot on 02.04.2007. The petitioner as a supervisor of the personnel wing represented to the 3^rd respondent, Depot Manager, stating that in view of the shortage of staff, collection of license fees from the licensees of stalls getting delayed. The 3^rd respondent was displeased with the representation of the petitioner.

¶16

The petitioner submitted that he was suffering with post kidney transplant operation problems reported sick on 06.04.2009 in APSRTC Hospital, Tarnaka and he was continued under sick till 28.05.2009. On 28.05.2009 the Senior Medical Officer, Tarnaka Hospital has declared that the petitioner is medically unfit and the said certificate was sent by the Senior Medical Officer to the

¶17

3^rd respondent to retire the petitioner on medical grounds. During the period of sick, the petitioner could not attend to his duties. Though he was alone in the personnel wing of the depot and there were no clerical staff in the personnel wing during the months of January, February and March, 2009, the petitioner ensured collection of license fees from the stall owners promptly for the said months.

¶18

It is further submitted that in view of the removal of one Sri Jayanna, Clerk, dealing with the stall licenses in October, 2008, there were some arrears to be paid by the Expresso Stall Licensee. It is further submitted that the petitioner reported sick on 06.04.2009 and could not attend to his duties from 06.04.2009. During the tenure of the petitioner, the license fees and part of arrears from the stall owner was collected regularly consequent on removal of the stalls clerk. Further, the petitioner has also submitted a detailed report to the Personnel Officer (RR) on 30.03.2009 about the license fees arrears of Rs.61.100/- payable by the Stall No.3 vide letter dated 30.03.2009 signed by the

¶19

3^rd respondent, which was received by the 2^nd respondent’s office on 30.03.2009. Thus, the petitioner is prompt in collection of license fees though there were no clerks.

¶20

Though the petitioner was declared unfit on 28.05.2009 and the certificate was received by the 3^rd respondent on 02.06.2009, the 3^rd respondent has not taken any action till 08.12.2009 and retired the petitioner on medical grounds vide order dated 08.12.2009 with effect

¶21

from 28.05.2009. It is submitted that the 3^rd respondent after receiving the medical unfit certificate on 02.06.2009, has issued a charge sheet dated 06.11.2009 alleging that the petitioner failed to cross check the collection of license fees of Stall No.3 at JBS Picket run by Sri D.Swamy, Contractor, thereby, Rs.1,10,819/- amount was not collected from the contractor for which, the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation. It is submitted that without considering the said explanation, enquiry was conducted on 10.10.2009 and thereafter, issued show cause notice dated 21.11.2009 proposing recovery of 50% of the amount i.e. Rs.55,409.50 ps. The petitioner gave a detailed explanation to the show cause notice on 24.11.2009. Even without considering this explanation, the 3^rd respondent issued order dated 24.11.2009, on the very same day of receiving the explanation order of recovery. It is also submitted that he filed an appeal in the office of the 3^rd respondent on 28.01.2010 for forwarding the same to the 2^nd respondent and the same has not been considered so far. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is no way concerned with the collection of license fee. Due to health reasons, he could not attend the duties on some days and thereafter, he retired from service on medical grounds.

¶23

It is also submitted that the action of the 3^rd respondent, in issuing impugned order dated 24.11.2009, without considering the facts of the case and without initiating any action against the owner of the stall, though the limitation is available, is illegal. Eventually, he submitted that aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.11.2009, the petitioner preferred an appeal in the office of the 3^rd respondent on 28.01.2010 and the same is pending.

¶24

In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case and it suffice to direct the respondents to consider

¶25

the appeal, stated to have been filed by the petitioner, and to pass appropriate orders thereon.

¶26

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent, Depot Manager, to forward the appeal, stated to have been filed by the petitioner before him, if not already forwarded to the 2^nd respondent, and on receipt of such appeal by the 2^nd respondent, Regional Manager, he shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

_________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 09.11.2011 LSK

G.Narasimha Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Narasimha Rao 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Srinivas Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc Secunderabad Division

Md.Naseeruddin Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

K.Yadesh Vs The Regional Manager

M. Nagendra Vs The Regional Manager

K.Shivaiah Vs The Divisional Manager

Smt.K.Swarna Latha Vs The Apsrtc rep.by its Managing Director