Allowed

T. Murali v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

Telangana HC18 Nov 2011WP/30611/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed a writ petition seeking continuity of service for a driver whose employment was terminated for unauthorized absence. The court held that the appellate authority's prior order permitting reinstatement without continuity of service was illegal. Consequently, the petitioner was directed to receive continuity of service for regularization, though no pecuniary benefits were grante

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to extend the benefit of continuity of service for the petitioner for regularization; no pecuniary benefits granted.

T. Murali Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 30611 of 2011

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking Writ of Mandamus to declare the impugned proceedings No. PA/20(120)2009-RM-T, dated 11.9.2009 passed by the 1^st respondent in so far as denial of continuity of service as being unjust, illegal, invalid and violative of the principles of natural justice and all consequential benefits.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Driver in the year 2006 in the Respondents-Corporation in accordance with law. Initially, he was posted at Puttur Depot in the month of April, 2006 and thereafter, he was transferred to Chittoor-I Depot. During the course of his duty on the route Sarakallu to Chittoor one Sri Guruswamy of Gajulapalli in a drunken state, stood in front of the bus and immediately he got down and requested him to move a side on which, he abused the petitioner at 14-30 hours; and in the return journey, again the said Sri Guruswamy stopped the bus at Patrapalli and attempted to attack the petitioner with a knife and when others dragged him, the knife hit the right side glass and the same was broken hitting his shoulder.

¶6

It is the further case of the petitioner that he has submitted sick certificate from 29.3.2008 for a few days and that was extended upto 15.5.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner could not extend the leave and therefore, when he went to depot on 17.6.2008, he was informed that his

¶7

services were terminated by the 2^nd respondent, by proceedings 23.6.2008.

¶8

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2^nd respondent had passed the orders dated 23.6.2008 without considering the explanation and the Medical certificate submitted by the petitioner and also without conducting any enquiry. Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority by proceedings dated 11.9.2009 having considered the case of the petitioner ordered for reinstatement, but without granting continuity of service.

¶9

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that denying continuity of service is bad in law and contrary to the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 19093 of 2009 dated 7.6.2010. In the said Writ Petition, the petitioner sought for issue of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in passing the impugned Order dated 28.4.2008 terminating the petitioner’s services as arbitrary, illegal and to quash the same. Following the Order dated 23.3.2009 in W.P.No. 5998 of 2009, the Writ Petition No. 19093 of 2009 was allowed directing the respondents to extend the benefit of seniority of the petitioner in contract service from the date of his initial appointment while making it clear that if there is any misconduct on the part of the petitioner. That order does not preclude the respondents from conducting any enquiry against the petitioner therein and pass appropriate Orders, in accordance with law.

¶10

Having regard to the fact that petitioner was appointed as a Driver in the year 2006 and was terminated by impugned proceedings dated 23.6.2008 passed by the

¶11

2^nd respondent on the ground of unauthorized absence from duty from 15.5.2008 to 16.6.2008 and having regard to the contention of the petitioner that the said Order is illegal, as it was passed without enquiry and that the 1^st respondent-appellate authority ordered reinstatement without granting continuity of service and following the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.19093 of 2009 (cited supra), this Writ Petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to extend the benefit of continuity of service for the period rendered by him for the purpose of regularization of his services and it is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled for any pecuniary and monetary benefits.

¶12

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶13

_______________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J

¶14

18^th November, 2011 CHV.

T. Murali v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Murali v. The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

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

N.V. Babu, Vs The Apsrtc

N. Bhaskar Rao Vs The a.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director

T. Lakshmana Rao, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Parasa Chandra Sekhar, Vs Smt. Arundhathi Bhattacharya

P. Venkateswarlu, Vs Apsrtc

R.Kishore Kumar Vs The Project Director