Allowed

M.Rajeswar Rao v. The Regional Manager

Telangana HC25 Nov 2011WP/31147/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a writ petition seeking reinstatement with continuity of service for a contract Conductor whose re-engagement lacked service continuity. Following a previous order, the court directed the respondents to treat the petitioner's period from termination to re-engagement as continuous service but denied monetary benefits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to be treated as entitled to continuity of service between termination and re-engagement, but denied monetary or other benefits.

M.Rajeswar Rao Vs The Regional Manager — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

W.P. No.31147 of 2011

¶6

Between:

¶7

M.Rajeswar Rao … Petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Secunderabad Region, JBS, Picket, Secunderabad, A.P. and another.

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶10

W.P. No.31147 of 2011

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent No.1 in not ordering re-engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as contract Conductor, as bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, 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

¶13

the 1^st respondent’s proceedings dated 26.02.2011 as reinstatement of the petitioner as Conductor with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with all consequential service benefits including regularization.

¶14

The petitioner was engaged as Conductor on contract basis in the respondents Corporation and later on he was removed from service on the ground of unauthorized absenteeism. Thereafter, he filed an appeal that was rejected and therefore, filed a revision, wherein he was re-engaged. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that while issuing orders of re-engagement, the respondents did not extend the benefit of continuity of service. Now the respondents have prepared a list for regularization of services of contract Conductors wherein, the juniors to him were placed and the name of the petitioner was not shown. Hence, he filed the present writ petition.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents Corporation.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing a copy of the order dated 15.09.2011 passed in W.P. No.25553 of 2011, submitted that this Court had dealt with identical issue and directed that the petitioner therein was entitled to the benefit of the service between the date of termination and the date of re-engagement.

¶17

The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents Corporation does not dispute the same.

¶18

In that view of the matter, following the order dated 15.09.2011 passed in W.P. No.25553 of 2011, this writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of continuity of service rendered between the date of termination and the date of reengagement. However,

¶19

the petitioner shall not be entitled to any monetary or other benefits in pursuance of this order.

¶20

Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶22

Date: 25.11.2011 LSK

M.Rajeswar Rao v. The Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Rajeswar Rao v. The 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd.Osman Vs Apsrtc rep.by its Managing Director, Musheerabad

C.H.Y.V.K.S.S.V. Maheswara Rao Vs Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Ramani Hotels Limited Vs The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court

Smt Satyamma , Julakanti Satyavati Vs The District B.C. Welfare Officer

E. Dharma, Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh

M. Goverdhan Reddy Vs The A.P.S.R.T.C.