Partly allowed

The Managing Director, v. Boddu Ramulu

Telangana HC20 Jun 2014WA/1894/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged a Single Judge's order reinstating a godown keeper who was allegedly illegally retrenched. The High Court upheld the reinstatement and continuity of service but modified the back wages awarded.

What did the court decide?

Reinstatement and continuity of service directed; payment of Rs. 50,000 in lieu of back wages ordered; Single Judge's order on back wages set aside.

The Managing Director, Vs Boddu Ramulu — 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 W.A.No.1894 of 2004

¶2

JUDGMENT: (Per LNR,J)

¶3

The 1^st respondent (for short ‘the respondent’) was engaged as a godown keeper by the appellant in the year 1985. On 08.06.1989, a show cause notice was issued to him by the appellant, directing him to explain as to why he be not retrenched, on the ground that he did not attend duties from 16.12.1988 onwards. Complaining that he has been prevented from attending duties and was illegally retrenched, the respondent filed R.P.No.16630 of 1989 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. Though certain interlocutory orders came to be passed therein, ultimately the proceedings before the Tribunal terminated, for want of jurisdiction.

¶4

The respondent filed W.P.No.27226 of 1995 before this Court with a prayer to direct the appellant to continue him in service. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition through order, dated 24.12.2003. Hence, this writ appeal.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

It is not in dispute that the respondent joined the service of the appellant and was discharging duties atleast till 16.12.1988. Except that a show cause notice was issued on 08.06.1989, no proceedings emanated from the appellant terminating the service of the respondent. Obviously because the respondent was being prevented from attending the duties, he pursued remedies initially before the Tribunal and thereafter, before

¶7

this Court.

¶8

A specific finding was recorded by the learned single Judge that several godown keepers, who are juniors to the respondent, were continued in service. Obviously to buttress his contention, the respondent impleaded one junior, by name T.Venkateswarlu as a respondent in the writ petition. Therefore, it is evident that firstly, the juniors to the respondent are continued in service and secondly, no order of termination or retrenchment was passed. The inevitable result is that the respondent is entitled to be continued in service.

¶9

It is true that the learned Single Judge made certain observations, which are difficult to sustain. For example, the relief was granted as though there were specific proceedings terminating the service. Though we do not find any serious error in the order under appeal, we are of the view that the grant of relief of payment of backwages is not warranted, particularly when the respondent did not even allege that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere.

¶10

We, therefore, partly allow the writ appeal sustaining the direction issued by the learned Single Judge as to reinstatement and continuity of service, but setting aside the one of payment of backwages, on condition that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of backwages.

¶11

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶13

______________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶14

Date: 20.06.2014 JSU

¶15

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

¶16

W.A.No.1894 of 2004

¶17

Date: 20.06.2014

¶18

JSU

The Managing Director, v. Boddu Ramulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director, v. Boddu Ramulu

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

Secty.Anwarul Uloom Day Degree College, Vs K.M.Wasif Ali Khan

Anwarul-Uloom College(Day and Evening) New Mallepalli Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the Principal Secretary

R.S. Siva Rao (died ) per Lr Vs C.Genrl.Mangr.State Bank of INDIA.HYDAND1

The Yemmiganur Weavers Cooperative Vs The Second Appellant Authority Under A.P.

N. Madhusudhan Rao S/o Laxmana Rao Vs The District Cooperative Officer

Rolla Sathaiah, Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.