Allowed

Smt. N. Radha Kumari, v. Regional Manager

Telangana HC27 Dec 2011WP/30614/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed by a conductor of APSRTC, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that re-engaged contractual employees are entitled to past service for regularization only, not for monetary benefits, following precedents on the same issue.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner entitled to benefit of service between termination and re-engagement for regularization only; no monetary benefits.

Smt. N. Radha Kumari, Vs Regional Manager — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

W.P. No.30614 of 2011

¶6

Between:

¶7

Smt. N.Radha Kumari … Petitioner and The Regional Manager, APSRTC., Anantapur and others. … Respondents

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶9

W.P. No.30614 of 2011

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings dated 08.12.2009 passed by the 3^rd respondent and proceedings dated 30.12.2009 passed by the 2^nd respondent, insofar as denial of benefit of continuity of service as being unjust, legally invalid and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and to grant all consequential benefits.

¶12

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Conductor appointed on contract basis in the year 2008. While so,

¶13

the 3^rd respondent, Depot Manager, issued proceedings dated 08.12.2009, removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2^nd respondent, Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, who passed order dated 30.12.2009, wherein set aside the order dated 08.12.2009 and ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner into service afresh without continuity of service.

¶14

The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2^nd respondent while ordering re-engagement did not extend the benefit of continuity of service.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subject matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by the order 04.03.2011 passed in W.P. No.5365 of 2011.

¶16

On the other hand, the learned standing counsel does not dispute that this matter is squarely covered by the order passed in W.P. No.5365 of 2011.

¶17

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel and perused the material on record.

¶18

It is not in dispute that the 2^nd respondent while ordering for reengagement of the petitioner did not extend the benefit of continuity of service.

¶19

From a perusal of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.5365 of 2011, wherein it is observed that identical issue was dealt with by this Court in W.P. No.8090 of 2010.

¶20

Through order, dated 12.04.2010, this Court held that the contractual employees, who are re-engaged on the orders of removal being set aside, are entitled to the benefit of past service. Eventually, directed that the petitioner therein shall be entitled to the benefit of the service between the date of termination and the date of re-engagement, only for the purpose of regularization.

¶21

In that view of the matter, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and following the order dated 04.03.2011 passed in W.P. No.5365 of 2011, this writ petition is disposed of directing that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the service between the date of termination and the date of re-engagement, only for the purpose of regularization. However, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits on account of the said benefit.

¶22

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

Date: 27.12.2011 LSK

¶24

________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

Smt. N. Radha Kumari, v. Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. N. Radha Kumari, v. Regional Manager

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

M.Sudhakar Vs The Superintending Engineer, Operation circle

B.Uma Maheswar Vs The Superintendent Engineer, Operation Circle

Valluru Subbulu Naidu Vs Mr. Valluru Sreedhar

B.Mallapa Vs Apsrtc rep.by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan

Sri Mallesha Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

G.P. Chandar Vs Apsrtc, Rep by its Managing Director