Allowed

Gangadara Sreenivas v. Divisional Engineer, (Operations)

Telangana HC19 Dec 2013WP/19598/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declared that discontinuing the petitioner as a driver was illegal. The Court held that the petitioner, working as a daily wage driver, falls under Board Proceedings for absorption. The petitioner is entitled to be absorbed in a suitable vacancy after a period of continuous service.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to absorb the petitioner as a driver in an alternative suitable position within eight weeks.

Gangadara Sreenivas Vs Divisional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Writ Petition No.19598 of 2002

¶2

Date: 19.12.2013

¶3

Between:

¶4

Gangadara Sreenivas, s/o. G. Lingaiah, Age: 28 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. Gangadara Village & Mandal, Near Pathakuntapally, Karimnagar District.

¶5

… Petitioners

¶6

AND Divisional Engineer (Operations), Northern Power Distribution Company A.P. Ltd., Jagitial, Karimnagar District, and another.

¶7

… Respondents

¶8

HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR Writ Petition No.19598 of 2002

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

A Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in discontinuing the petitioner as a driver is illegal is sought on the ground that the same is violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioner also sought for consequential direction to the respondents to absorb the petitioner as a driver in the respondent-company.

¶11

2. The petitioner was working as a driver on daily wage basis with effect from 16.04.1995. He was in service till May, 2002. Questioning the discontinuation of the petitioner, the writ petition is laid.

¶12

3. In 1997, an agreement was entered into between the Management and the Employees Union.

¶13

It was agreed to absorb all categories of workers who were working temporarily as a) casual labour, b) village electricity workers and c) contract labours were to be absorbed under the agreement. Accordingly, B.P. (P&G.Per) Ms.No.271, dated 31.12.2007 was issued. Even prior to that, B.P. (P&G.Per) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 was passed ordering the filling up of 50 existing vacancies through former casual labour and village electricity workers who obtained court orders.

¶14

4. In accordance with the Board Proceedings, information was called for from the first respondentDivisional Engineer by the second respondentSuperintending Engineer. The Divisional Engineer accordingly furnished the information on 06.09.1997 that the petitioner was a contract labour working from 16.04.1995. The proceedings dated 01.06.2000 from the office of the second respondent show that the petitioner along with two others was interviewed. The first respondent in response to the proceedings dated 01.06.2000 of the second respondent reiterated that the petitioner had been working as driver with effect from 06.04.1995 and has been engaged to drive vehicle bearing No.AP-15-6885.

¶15

5. The respondents, however, contended that the petitioner is not a contract labour engaged by the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents referred to the letter of the first respondent dated 07.09.1994 to the second respondent to permit the first respondent to engage a driver for jeep bearing No.AP-15-6885. On

¶16

08.11.1994 the second respondent issued a memo according permission to the first respondent to engage a driver through a private agency. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that accordingly a private travel agency was engaged which supplied the petitioner to the first respondent.

¶17

He further submitted that in 2002 the services of the petitioner had to be dispensed with, as Operation and Maintenance (O&M) staff was converted into jeep drivers. He submitted that no new person was engaged as a driver. He submitted that a driver engaged through a private travel agency cannot be a contract labour falling within B.P. (P&G.Per) Ms.Nos.36 & 271 and that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as claimed.

¶18

6. The letter of the first respondent dated 06.09.1997 clearly shows that the petitioner had been engaged as a driver with effect from 16.04.1995.

¶19

The letter does not show that the petitioner was sent by a private travel agent. Further, Memo of the second respondent dated 01.06.2000 shows that the petitioner was interviewed. The further letter dated 03.06.2000 of the first respondent again shows that the petitioner was a daily wage driver of the respondents and not a driver engaged by a private travel agency. In view of the same, the petitioner is liable to be absorbed in terms of B.P. (P&G.Per) Ms. Nos.36 and 271. The petitioner consequently is entitled to the relief prayed for. However, it is contended by the respondents that as on today there is no vacancy of driver to absorb the

¶20

petitioner. In such an event, the petitioner shall be absorbed in another suitable alternative vacancy.

¶21

7. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents 1 & 2 to absorb the petitioner as a driver and if there is no vacancy of the post of the driver, in any alternative suitable position. This exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶22

Dr. K.G. SHANKAR, J

¶23

Date: 19.12.2013 Isn

Gangadara Sreenivas v. Divisional Engineer, (Operations)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangadara Sreenivas v. Divisional Engineer, (Operations)

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

G. Sammaiah S/o Venkataiah, Vs The Chief General Manager, (Hrd)

Konda Veera Shiva Prasad Vs Arya Vysya Sangham

J.Hachiya, Vs The Commandant 2 Signal Bn

Smt. P.Bhavani Vs The Commissioner of Intermediate Education

P.Bhavani Vs The Govt of A.P.

Laxmana Swamy Sirpur Kagaznagar Adilabad Vs a.P.Forest Dev.Cor.Ltd HYDAND3 Ors.