Dismissed

Apsrtc represented by its Depot Manager, v. D.Lingaiah

Telangana HC11 Dec 2014WA/1296/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ appeal arising from a dispute over the pay scale of a retired APSRTC conductor. Initially reinstated without increments, the employee was later placed in a higher pay scale by the employer. The Court held that once the higher scale was fixed, the employer could not withdraw it without challenging the order in appeal. Despite the respondent's retirement, directed monetary

What did the court decide?

Directed the appellants to extend all benefits entitled to the respondent within six weeks from the date of the judgment.

Apsrtc represented by its Depot Manager… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶2

WRIT APPEAL No.1296 of 2006

¶3

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

¶4

This Writ Appeal is filed against the order, dated 02.01.2006, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.13098 of 1996. The appellants are the respondents in the writ petition.

¶5

The respondent was employed as a Conductor in the APSRTC. He was removed from service way back on 18.04.1972. Aggrieved by that, he filed I.D.No.143 of 1980 before the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Labour Court’). Through its award dated 11.03.1982, the Labour Court has set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement into service, but without any backwages and without any attendant benefits including the increments.

¶6

By the time the respondent was removed from service, his pay was Rs.510/-. While reinstating into service in compliance with the order passed by the Labour Court, the appellants placed the respondent in the pay scale of Rs.615/-. However, they initiated steps for withdrawing the increments over and above the pay scale of Rs.510/-. Recovery was also affected. Aggrieved by that, the respondent filed W.P.No.10240 of 1985. Through order dated 28.09.1988, the writ petition was allowed. It was held that the respondent was entitled to pay scale of Rs.615/- when the appellants themselves have done so. Further direction was issued

¶7

for refund of the amount that was recovered from the respondent.

¶8

The respondent filed W.P.No.13098 of 1996, complaining that the appellants did not fix the pay scale in accordance with the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.10240 of 1985. The writ petition was allowed through order dated 02.01.2006. Hence, this writ appeal.

¶9

Heard Smt. Danda Radhika, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶10

It is no doubt true that while granting the relief of setting aside the order of removal and reinstatement of the respondent into service, the Labour Court held that he shall not be entitled to any increments. There would have been every justification for the appellants to continue the respondent with the same scale of pay, which he was drawing by the time he was removed from service. However, on their own accord, the appellants fixed the pay scale at Rs.615/-, as against the pay scale of Rs.510/-, in which the respondent was working by the time he was removed from service. When the pay scale so fixed was disturbed and attempts were made to recover the amount, the respondent filed W.P.No.10240 of 1985 and this Court granted the relief as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs.

¶11

In case the appellants were of the view that the respondent is not entitled to pay scale of Rs.615, they ought to have challenged the order passed in the writ petition. That not having been done, it was not open for the appellants at all to fix the scale of pay of the respondent in any other manner. It is brought to the notice of this

¶12

Court that the respondent retired from service long back and no benefit whatever was extended to him on account of pendency of the writ appeal.

¶13

We, therefore, dismiss the writ appeal. It is, however, directed that all the benefits, which the respondent is entitled to, shall be extended to him within a period of six weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

The miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall stand disposed of.

¶15

______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J

¶16

____________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J 11.12.2014 v v

Apsrtc represented by its Depot Manager, v. D.Lingaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Apsrtc represented by its Depot Manager, v. D.Lingaiah

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

Late Haricharan Agarwal Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax

M/s.Sri Venkata Balaji Jute Mills (P) Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax-Ii

Shri M.Sreeram Reddy Vs The Additonal Commissioner of Incoem Tax

P.L.N. Sarma Vs Indian Bank, Rep. by its Chairperson and

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc., Mancherial Depot Vs Mohd.Yousuf, E.93887, Conductor

M/s.Sandeep PipeTraders Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax