Allowed

Smt.B.a.Appala Narasmma, v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC3 Dec 2011WP/31212/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought to challenge the arbitrary non-engagement of a contract employee and the failure to pass orders on proceedings. The Court discharged the duty to pass appropriate orders on representations and appeals and directed the respondent authority to decide within one month.

What did the court decide?

The respondent authority directed to pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 27.11.2010 and appeal dated 05.01.2011 within one month.

Smt.B.a.Appala Narasmma, Vs The Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No.31212 of 2011

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) appearing for the respondents.

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent – Chairman and Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, in not engaging the petitioner with continuity of service as Conductor, as arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable and against the principles of natural justice and the Circulars of the Corporation and consequently, to direct the respondents to reinstate her into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits with all consequential benefits including regularization.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that she joined the Corporation on 30.05.2006 at Anakapalli Depot on contract basis. While she was discharging the duties as such, she fell sick in September, 2008 due to Tuberculosis. She took treatment from Dr.B.L.Prasad, Physician and Consultant and has been issued with a medical certificate stating that she took treatment for the period from 10.09.2008 to 26.11.2010 for the said disease. Thereafter, she submitted a representation along with the medical certificate, to the Officer concerned. The third respondent – Depot Manager, APSRTC, Tekkali Depot, Tekkali, Srikakulam District, issued proceedings, dated 10.09.2008 relieving her as she was disengaged vide Office Order, dated 25.08.2008, and directed Palakonda Depot for her re-engagement. But she could not report to duty at Palakonda. Thereafter, she made a representation enclosing the medical certificate, on 27.11.2010 to the second respondent –

¶6

Regional Manager, APSRTC, NEC Region, Vizianagaram. In spite of receiving the same, the second respondent has not passed any order. Thereafter, she submitted appeal on 05.01.2011 requesting for reinstatement into service. In spite of the same, no orders have been passed. Therefore, she filed the present Writ Petition.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner submitted a representation on 27.11.2010 and appeal on 05.01.2011, the second respondent has not passed any orders thereon. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the first respondent issued Circular bearing No.PD-05/2009, dated 23.02.2009 and the same is to the effect that instances have come to notice that the contract crew whose contract is terminated due to their involvement in absenteeism, accident/C&T irregularity cases are approaching the Courts and the Courts are pronouncing judgments that whenever stigma, like involvement in accident, cash and ticket irregularities and other serious misconducts, is attached, a detailed enquiry has to be conducted and further action has to be taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the instant case, no enquiry is conducted pursuant to the Circular issued by the Corporation. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that simply, the petitioner is denied re-engagement as Conductor in the Corporation. Therefore, she filed appeal before the appellate authority i.e. the second respondent herein and the same is pending.

¶8

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation appearing for respondents submits that by proceedings, dated 10.09.2008, the third respondent while re-engaging the petitioner, directed her to report to duty at Palakonda and without doing so, thereafter, she stated to have submitted a representation on 27.11.2010 and appeal on 05.01.2011 before the

¶9

second respondent and the same could not be considered as she has not claimed.

¶10

It is to be noted that whenever Drivers and Conductors, who have been engaged initially on contract basis, are removed from service on the ground of absenteeism or otherwise, the Corporation is taking the lenient view by considering their cases and ordering reengagement even in case where they could not report to duty for various reasons.

¶11

In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to the second respondent to pass appropriate orders on representation, dated 27.11.2010 and appeal, dated 05.01.2011, in accordance with law, within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

¶12

___________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J

¶13

3^rd DECEMBER, 2011.

¶14

kvni

Smt.B.a.Appala Narasmma, v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.B.a.Appala Narasmma, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Ramesh Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

D.Illaiah Vs The Regional Manager

Kollu Venkata Subbaiah Vs The Depot Manager

D.Ramakoteshwar Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal

M. Srinivasulu Vs The Union of India

C. Venkata Rama Rao Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation