Allowed

N.Pandu v. The Andhra pradesh Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC16 Nov 2011WP/30330/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition filed by a contract driver claiming non-recognition of service continuity after reinstatement. Relying on a prior identical decision, the court directed the respondent to grant the petitioner benefits of service between termination and re-engagement, excluding monetary benefits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be entitled to benefit of service between date of termination and date of reengagement, excluding monetary benefits.

N.Pandu Vs The Andhra pradesh Road… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.30330 of 2011 Dated 16-11-2011

Between:

N.Pandu.

…Petitioner.

And:

The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Secunderabad Region, JBS, Picket, Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh and another.

¶7

…Respondents.

¶8

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.30330 of 2011 ORDER:

¶9

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 1^st respondent in not ordering reengagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as Contract Driver is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unreasonable as the termination of the petitioner 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 proceedings dated 23-07-2011 as reinstatement of the petitioner as Driver with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with all consequential service benefits.

¶10

The case of the writ petitioner, in brief, is as follows: He was appointed as Contract Driver on 1-4-2006 through a regular selection process in Hyderabad City Region. At present, he is working in APSRTC, Hakimpet Bus Depot, Hakimpet, Hyderabad.

¶11

While he was performing his duties, he was terminated from service by office order dated 1-6-2006 on the allegation of absenteeism without proper enquiry. Subsequent to that, he filed an appeal on 23-10-2010 to

¶12

the Divisional Manager, Secunderabad Division, but the same was rejected on 24-11-2010. Thereafter, he has filed a review petition on 22-12-2010 to the Regional Manager, Secunderabad Region-1^st respondent by explaining that due to his ill-health and his personal problems, he could not attend the duties for the alleged period. In turn the 1^st respondent-Regional Manager considered and ordered for his reengagement by his proceedings dated 23-7-2011 as fresh Contract Driver. Subsequent to that, he was reinstated into service and he is performing his duties as usual.

¶13

Recently, the respondents prepared a list for regularization of services of Contract Driver. The juniors to him were also placed in the list of the candidates for regularization. But unfortunately, ordering re-engagement without mentioning continuity of service by the respondents, his name was not considered for regularization. His termination order dated 1-6-2006 itself is illegal and void. No domestic enquiry was conducted.

¶14

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

¶15

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. Apart from that, since his case has not been considered in respect of continuity of service, his name was not considered for regularization of his services. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition.

¶16

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.25553 of 2011.

¶17

The said writ petition in W.P.No.25553 of 2011 was

¶18

filed by the petitioner therein for issuance of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the 1^st respondent therein in not ordering re-engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as Contract Driver is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unreasonable as the termination of the petitioner therein is against the principles of natural justice and against to the Corporation circulars and consequently, direct the respondents to treat the 1^st respondent-proceedings dated 25-11-2010 as reinstatement of the petitioner as Driver with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with all consequential service benefits including regularisation.

¶19

By order dated 15-9-2011, this Court allowed the said writ petition observing as under:

¶20

“Identical issue was dealt with by this Court in W.P.No.8090 of 2010. Through order, dated 12-04-2010, this Court held that the contractual employees, who are reengaged on the orders of removal being set aside, are entitled for the benefit of past service.

¶21

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.”

¶22

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

¶23

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed and consequently, it is directed that the petitioner shall be

¶24

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

¶26

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.30330 of 2011 Dated 16-11-2011

N.Pandu v. The Andhra pradesh Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Pandu v. The Andhra pradesh 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

M.Veera Sangappa Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

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