Dismissed

The Depot Manager, v. K. Krishna Murthy

Telangana HC27 Nov 2012WA/1467/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Acting Chief Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Justice Vilas V. Afzulkar heard an appeal by APSRTC against a Single Judge order granting continuity of service to a terminated contract driver driving apt illter criteria set in earlier batch orders. The court held that since the Writ Court had settled the rule in WP No.2786 of 2012 regarding specific factual situations applicable here, the employee c

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.

The Depot Manager, Vs K. Krishna Murthy — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

¶2

AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶3

WRIT APPEAL NO.1467 OF 2012

¶4

DATED:27.11.2012

¶5

Between: The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C. Nizamabad – II Bus Depot Nizamabad … Appellant And K. Krishna Murthy … Respondent

¶6

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO.1467 OF 2012

¶8

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶9

This writ appeal is filed by the appellant – A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) against the order dt.4.7.2012, passed by the Hon’ble single Judge, in W.P.No.10454 of 2012.

¶10

The respondent – writ petitioner, who is a contract Driver in the service of the APSRTC, was terminated from service by order dated 01.11.2007, on the ground that he had caused an accident whereby two persons lost their lives. Questioning the order of termination, the writ petitioner filed a review before the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nizamabad, who confirmed the order of termination. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitioner approached the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, by filing I.D. No.9 of 2010 and the same was also dismissed.

¶11

The Hon’ble Single Judge, by order dt.4.7.2012, allowed the writ petition with certain directions.

¶12

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the Hon’ble Single Judge, dt.4.7.2012, this appeal is filed by the APSRTC. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

¶13

It appears that earlier some identical matters came up before the Writ Court and the Writ Court has already settled the position by a common order dated 29.02.2012 passed in WP No.2786 of 2012 and batch. The Hon’ble single Judge, after taking into consideration the

¶14

facts as well as the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, did agree in passing an order with the following directions:

¶15

“(1) In cases where the appellate/revisional authority has directed re-engagement of the contract employees as fresh employees, such employees shall be entitled to benefit of continuity of service from the date of termination till the date of re-engagement, except for the period during which they were absent, and the said continuity of service granted to the employees shall be without any monetary benefit and shall be counted only for the purpose of regularization at a future date.

¶16

(2) The continuity of service so ordered in para(1) shall not, however, be counted for the purpose of seniority and shall not be allowed to affect the seniority of regularly working employees or for other benefits, but shall be counted only for the purpose of considering their cases for regularization.

¶17

(3) There are also cases where the orders of termination are challenged, either before the appellate/revisional authorities or before this Court, after six or seven years of date of termination. In all such cases the benefit of continuity of service without any monetary benefit and re-engagement so ordered in para (1) shall be available to only to such of those employees who have approached the appellate/revisional authorities or this court within three years from the date of termination.

¶18

(4) In cases where appeals/revisions or writ petitions are filed after three years of the orders of termination, it is directed that such petitioner/s shall be considered for the engagement as fresh contract employee/s, subject to medical fitness and other formalities, but he/they shall not be entitled to continuity of past service as under para (1) above.

¶19

(5) In cases where contract employees have preferred appeals/revisions, but no orders have been passed therein, the appellate/revisional authorities shall entertain and dispose of those appeals/revisions in the light of the directions referred to above, preferably on or before 31^st March, 2012.

¶20

(6) In cases where no enquiry was conducted, the respondentCorporation shall be free to conduct enquiry as per law into the allegations of unauthorized absence of its employees from duty or other allegations of misconduct.”

¶21

It appears that in the present case, Award has already been passed in favour of the APSRTC and there is no Award in favour of the writ petitioner – employee. Hence, the writ petitioner filed the writ

¶22

petition. The Hon’ble Single Judge, after considering the facts of the matter in question, and further after taking into account that in such a situation the Corporation has already taken steps to reemploy similar employees on fresh basis, passed an order in favour of the writ petitioner directing that the writ petitioner shall be re-engaged in service as a contract Driver with the benefit of continuity of service. However, the continuity of service so extended to him shall be counted only for the purpose of his regularization at a future date and shall not entail any monetary benefits. It shall also not be counted for the purpose of seniority, and shall not affect the seniority of regularly working employees, or for any other benefits.

¶23

Considering the facts of the case placed before us and taking into consideration of the above referred decision in W.P. No. 2786 of 2012, since the Writ Court has taken a view that similar employees were directed to be re-engaged by the APSRTC, we are of the opinion that the same benefit cannot be denied to the writ petitioner. Hence, we do not find that there is any merit in this appeal to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge. We affirm the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge.

¶24

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶25

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶26

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 27.11.2012

¶27

bnr

The Depot Manager, v. K. Krishna Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Depot Manager, v. K. Krishna Murthy

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

Abraham Memorial Educational Committee, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director Vs P. Raghu

G. Sreeramulu S/o G. Siranna Vs Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Andhra Pradesh

Narinder Kumar Dhingra Vs Secunderabad Cantonment Board

Indira Park Walkers Association Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh