Petitioner, a conductor appointed on contract, challenges failure to extend continuity of service after reinstatement following termination for absenteeism. Court allows petition granting service continuity benefit only.
Petitioner entitled to benefit of service between termination and reinstatement; no monetary benefits.
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.29827 of 2011
Between:
Smt K.Swarna Latha … Petitioner And The APSRTC., Represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others.
… Respondents
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
W.P. No.29827 of 2011
ORDER:
The petitioner was appointed on contract basis as a Conductor. After some time, she was terminated from service on the ground of absenteeism. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, Regional Manager, having considered the appeal, ordered for reinstatement as a fresh Conductor. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that while issuing orders of reinstatement,
the respondents did not extend the benefit of continuity of service. Now the respondents have regularized the services of her juniors and the case of the petitioner was not considered for regularization. Hence, she filed the present writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents Corporation.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing a copy of the order dated 07.09.2010 passed in W.P. No.22303 of 2010, submitted that this Court had dealt with identical issue and directed that the petitioner therein was entitled to the benefit of the service between the date of termination and the date of re-engagement.
The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents Corporation does not dispute the same.
In that view of the matter, following order dated 07.09.2010
passed in W.P. No.22303 of 2010, this writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the service rendered between the date of termination and the date of reinstatement. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits on account of the said benefit. No costs.
_________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
Date: 09.11.2011 LSK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner entitled to continuity of service between termination and reinstatement.
Whether the petitioner entitled to monetary benefits for said period.
Smt K.Swarna Latha
The APSRTC.
Musheerabad, Hyderabad
G.CHANDRAIAH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
