Dismissed

M.Srinivas Reddy, S/o.Bichi Reddy v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC9 Jun 2014WP/15602/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge disposed of the writ petition filed by a contract conductor terminated for unauthorized absence without enquiry. The court did not examine merits but directed the petitioner to approach the Corporation's appellate authority within two weeks with a condonation of delay application.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to approach appellate authority within two weeks by filing appeal plus condonation of delay; no order as to costs.

M.Srinivas Reddy, S/o.Bichi Reddy Vs The Telangana… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.15602 of 2014

¶3

ORAL ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation.

¶5

Since the issue involved in the present writ petition lies in a narrow compass, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

¶6

Shorn of extraneous particulars, the issue in brief is that the petitioner was appointed a contract conductor in the respondent Corporation on 27.04.2006 and was attached to the 3^rd respondent Depot. Later, in course of time, the petitioner is said to have fallen ill on 14.07.2006 and remained absent from duty till 21.08.2006. In any event, treating the petitioner’s absence from 14.07.2006 to 21.08.2006 as unauthorized absence, the respondent Corporation terminated the petitioner from service without enquiry.

¶7

Having waited for about five years, now the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶8

The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on an order dated 24.08.2012 in W.P.No.26391 of 2012 rendered by a learned Single Judge based on earlier judgments of this Court in a batch of writ petitions. The learned counsel submits that the authorities may take a lenient view given the pathetic financial condition of the petitioner and consider his case for re-engagement as a fresh contract employee in terms of the earlier orders of this Court.

¶9

On the other hand, the learned Standing counsel has pointed out that the writ petition is hit by laches and even otherwise the petitioner ought to have in the first place exhausted the remedy of appeal before the appellate authority of the respondent Corporation.

¶10

Noting down the said rival submissions, without adverting to the merits of the case, this Court disposes of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority by filing an appeal along with a petition for condonation of delay setting out the reasons that have disabled him from approaching the appellate authority on time. If such an appeal is filed, the appellate authority is expected to consider the same objectively and pass appropriate orders thereon, duly taking into account all the ineluctable circumstances concerning the petitioner. The petitioner is required to file an appeal within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and on such filing, the appellate authority may dispose it of as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶12

_________________________ DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU,J 09.06.2014 Note: C.C. by two days. eha

M.Srinivas Reddy, S/o.Bichi Reddy v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Srinivas Reddy, S/o.Bichi Reddy v. The Telangana 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

K. Narasimha Reddy Vs The Vice Chairman and Managing Director Andhra Pradesh

Miss Nagilla Naga Lakshmi D/o Late N. Jangaiah Vs The Director

L. R.Naik, Vs The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Rayadurg Depot

G. Pavan Kumar Vs The Apsrtc, rep. by its Managing Director

C. Nirmala, Vs The Vice Chairman and Managing Director

K.Thayanna, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation