Disposed

D. Uma Rani v. Andhra PRadesh State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC29 Dec 2011WP/33619/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a consolidated disposal, the High Court modified impugned proceedings to treat the petitioner as re-employed with continuity of service from the date of removal. This granted regularization parity with juniors and consequential benefits except monetary relief, citing the appellate authority's intent to give another chance.

What did the court decide?

Modified proceedings to treat petitioner as re-engaged with continuity of service from date of removal, granting regularization benefits except monetary ones.

D. Uma Rani Vs Andhra PRadesh State Road… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY THE TWENTYNINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 33619 OF 2011

¶6

Between: D. Uma Rani … Petitioner V/s. APSRTC Represented by its Regional Manager, Hyderabad Region & Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri A.G. Satyanarayana Rao Counsel for the Respondents : Sri K. Madhava Reddy SC for APSRTC

¶8

The Court made the following : (Order follows next page)

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 33619 OF 2011

¶11

O R D E R :

¶12

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

¶13

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking mandamus to declare the action of the second respondent to the extent of not ordering re-

¶14

engagement of the petitioner with continuity of service as contract

¶15

conductor, as arbitrary and unjust and consequently to direct the respondents to treat the Proceedings No. PA/19(C-67)/ 2009-

¶16

DVM(CR), dated 6j-10-2009 passed by the second respondent

¶17

as re-engagement with continuity of service with all

¶18

consequential benefits including regularization on par with her juniors and to pass such other suitable orders as this court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶19

3. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as a contract conductor in the first respondent corporation in May 2006 and since then

¶20

she has been discharging her duties to the satisfaction of her superiors. While so, on 25-4-2009 when the petitioner was asked to perform double

¶21

duty on service No. 136/2 by the Traffic Inspector and accordingly she performed the duties because there was delay on her part for attending the duty she abused herself in harsh language and torn the star document infront of the Traffic Inspector. The respondent No.3 issued proceedings No. 02/114(C-12090)/09HCU dated 15-7-2009 removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the same, she preferred an appeal before the second respondent and the second respondent issued proceedings No. PA/19 (C067)/2009-DVM(CR) dated 6-10-2009 while setting aside the order of removal, ordered re-engagement into service and posted to Mehdipatnam depot on condition that she should execute an agreement on non-judicial stamp paper worth of Rs.100/- as if she is being engaged afresh. Accordingly, the petitioner reported at Mehdipatnam depot and has been discharging her duties without any remark.

¶22

4. The contention of the petitioner before this court is that she has

¶23

not violated any rules and regulations of the respondent-corporation during the relevant time i.e., on 25-4-2009 but she was asked to perform double duty and in that process there was a little bit delay in attending the duties. In response to the instructions of the concerned Traffic Inspector she abused herself in un-parliamentary language.

¶24

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she did not abuse any of the authorities but however there is a mistake on her part to use such language even for herself but it is for the first time that has been used. Therefore, she may be pardoned.

¶25

6. In this case, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment for removal from service. The appellate authority with a view to afford one more opportunity to the petitioner considered her case for re-engagement into service. Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of re-engagement into service with continuity of service for the purpose of regularization.

¶26

7. In this case, on an enquiry, it was found that there is lapse on the part of the petitioner in using the above un-parliamentary language during the course of employment and in response to the instructions of the concerned officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she abused herself but this matter was dealt with by the Enquiry Officer holding that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are proved. Therefore, this court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case because the appellate authority, who considered the case of the petitioner for reengagement with a view to afford her one more opportunity. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission modifying the impugned proceedings to that of re-engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner from the date of removal till date with all consequential benefits including regularization on par with her juniors but without monetary benefit. No costs.

¶27

---------------------------------------JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶28

29-12-2011 I s L

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO. 33619 OF 2011

¶31

CIRCULATION NO. 33 Date:29-12-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43

D. Uma Rani v. Andhra PRadesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Uma Rani v. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Chaitanya Bharati Institute of Technology, Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Labour and Controlling Authori

R.S. Narayana Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

M. Jayakumar, Vs The Managing Director

N.R.Thirtha Vs Apsrtc rep.by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan

R. Seetaiah Vs The Regional Manager

D.a.Krishna, Vs The Apsrtc, Rep.by Executive Director (Hcz)