Allowed

K.V. Babu v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC16 Nov 2011WP/30278/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition, holding that a contract driver reinstated after an earlier removal order is entitled to continuity of service benefits from the date of termination to reengagement, without monetary claims.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner entitled to service continuity benefits between termination and reengagement dates; no monetary benefits.

K.V. Babu Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.30278 of 2011 Dated 16-11-2011

Between:

K.V.Babu.

…Petitioner.

And:

The Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation represented by its Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam and others.

¶7

…Respondents.

¶8

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.30278 of 2011

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 1^st respondent in ordering fresh reengagement of the petitioner as contract driver is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unreasonable as the termination of the petitioner by the 3^rd respondent is against to the principles of natural justice and against to the corporation circulars and consequently, direct the respondents to treat the 1^st respondent’s proceedings No.PA/19(90)/10-RM/VSP dated 16-2-2011 as reengagement with continuity of service with all consequential service benefits.

¶11

The case of the writ petitioner, in brief, is as follows: He was appointed as contract driver on 25-9-2008

¶12

by the 1^st respondent-Regional Manager and was attached to Visakhapatnam Depot and subsequently, was transferred to Simhachalam Depot and was terminated by the 3^rd respondent-Depot Manager for absenteeism for the period from 27-12-2009 to 20-01-2010. Though certificate was produced from the government KG Hospital, the same

¶13

was not considered by the 3^rd respondent-Depot Manager. Subsequently, by an office order dated 20-12010, he was terminated from service against which he preferred an appeal before the 2^nd respondent-Deputy Chief Traffic Manager but the same was rejected by proceedings dated 15.7.2010. Subsequently, when he filed review petition before the 1^st respondent-Regional Manager against the above orders, the 1^st respondent-Regional Manager by proceedings dated 16-2-2011 ordered for his reengagement into service as a contract driver afresh.

¶14

The order of the 3^rd respondent-Depot Manager in terminating him without any enquiry and without giving notice and opportunity is illegal.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation and perused the material available on record.

¶16

The main grievance of the petitioner is that though he has been reinstated into service, his case has not been considered by giving the continuity of service from the date of termination to the date of reengagement. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition.

¶17

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relief sought for by the petitioner is squarely covered by an unreported order of this Court in Writ Petition in W.P.No.27593 of 2011.

¶18

The said writ petition in W.P.No.27593 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner therein for issuance of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 1^st respondent therein in ordering fresh re-engagement of the petitioner as Contract Driver is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unreasonable as the termination of the petitioner by the 3^rd respondent therein is against to the principles of natural justice and against to the Corporation

¶19

circulars and consequently, direct the respondents to treat the 1^st respondent-proceedings dated 29-102009 as re-engagement with continuity of service with all consequential service benefits.

¶20

By order dated 30-9-2011, this Court allowed the said writ petition observing as under:

¶21

“Identical issue was dealt with by this Court in W.P.No.8090 of 2010. Through order, dated 12-042010, this Court held that the contractual employees, who are re-engaged on the orders of removal being set aside, are entitled for the benefit of past service.

¶22

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 re-engagement. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits on account of this relief. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶23

There is no dispute that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the above order of this Court.

¶24

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed and consequently, 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.

¶25

Justice

¶26

G.CHANDRAIAH

¶27

Dated 16-11-2011. Note: Issue C.C. today. BO Dvs

¶28

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.30278 of 2011 Dated 16-11-2011

K.V. Babu v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.V. Babu v. The 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Anjaneyulu, Vs The Regional Manager

M.M. Baig, Vs Apsrtc, Rep by its Managing Director

A. Jagadamba Vs The Project Director, District Water Management Association

T. Ravinder Raju Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

N.Pandu Vs The Andhra pradesh Road Transport Corporation

M.Veera Sangappa Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation