Allowed

K. Venkatesh v. The Divisional Manager, Apsrtc.

Telangana HC21 Dec 2011WP/30025/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the Writ Petition, directing the respondents to count the petitioner's past service from the date of termination till reinstatement solely for the purpose of regularization, explicitlycluding monetary or other benefits.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to count petitioner's past service from termination to reinstatement date for regularization only, without monetary benefits.

K. Venkatesh Vs The Divisional Manager… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.30025 OF 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of first respondent in not ordering reengagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as contract Driver as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable, as the termination of the petitioner is against the principles of natural justice and against the Corporation circulars, and consequently direct the respondents to treat first respondent’s proceedings, dated 20.09.2010, as reinstatement of the petitioner as Driver with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with all consequential service benefits including regularization.

¶5

2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition may be stated as follows:-

¶6

The petitioner was appointed as contract Driver in the month of August, 2009 in the respondent Corporation. While so, he was terminated from service on 17.04.2010 on the ground of unauthorized absenteeism from 18.09.2009 to 28.01.2010 by the Depot Manager, Mushirabad Depot. Though an enquiry was conducted before the order of removal was passed, it was an e x parte enquiry. Subsequently, he came to be re-engaged on the basis of the orders passed by the appellate authority-respondent No.1 on 20.09.2010. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that while issuing orders of reengagement, the respondents did not extend the benefit of continuity of service. Hence, he filed the present writ petition.

¶7

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no enquiry was conducted; that in cases of similarly situated persons, this Court ordered for continuity of service from the date of termination till the date of re-engagement for the purpose of regularization, but without

¶8

monetary benefits, and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief.

¶9

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation contended that it is a case where even the petitioner did not work for one month continuously in view of the fact that he was appointed only in the month of August, 2009 and from 18.09.2009 onwards, he became absent and thereby caused inconvenience to the respondent Corporation, which resulted in issuance of the termination order, dated 17.04.2010, by following the due process of law, but the same were set aside by the appellate authority by its proceedings, dated 20.09.2010, having regard to the fact that the petitioner previously worked in the respondent Corporation and he got some experience; that the petitioner has no interest at all in serving the Corporation and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief.

¶10

5. In similar cases where contract Conductors and Drivers approached this Court questioning the order passed by the appellate authority/revisional authority wherein they were not considered for continuity of service, this Court set aside those orders on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and ordered for continuity of service from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement only for the purpose of regularization of services, but without monetary benefits. Two orders of that nature passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.22283 of 2011 and 12333 of 2011 are referred to as under:

¶11

“Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the respondents shall extend the benefit of counting of past service for the purpose of regularization of service and not for any other monetary benefit. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶12

“The writ petition is allowed and it is also directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service between the date of termination and the date of reengagement, only for purposes of regularization. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary or other benefits in pursuance of this order. No costs.”

¶13

6. Following the same, the Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for providing continuity of service from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement into service for the purpose of regularization of his services, if the Corporation takes a decision to regularize the services of the petitioner, but without any monetary benefits. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶15

21^st December, 2011 AMD

¶16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶17

WRIT PETITION NO.30025 OF 2011

¶18

Date:21.12.2011

¶19

AMD

K. Venkatesh v. The Divisional Manager, Apsrtc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Venkatesh v. The Divisional Manager, Apsrtc.

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/s.Khoday Industries (Hyderabad ) Pvt. Ltd., Shamshabad Vs The Presiding officer, Hon`ble Labour court-I

K. Venkataiah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

B. Prasada Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Ch.Janardhan, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution Company Ltd.

T. Ravi Vs The Divisional Manager, Apsrtc.

S.Somanatha Sastry Vs The Andhra Bank, a Govt of India undertaking