Disposed

Md.Habeeb, v. The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director

Telangana HC18 Oct 2016WP/34892/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of seven writ petitions regarding drivers declared medically unfit and reemployed. Relying on a prior batch order, the Court directed compensation for lost salary, provision of alternative jobs, and payment of Driver allowances with interest where suitable posts were unavailable.

What did the court decide?

Directions for payment of pay and allowances of the post of Driver, arrears with 8% interest, and provision of alternative jobs or supernumerary status.

Md.Habeeb, Vs The Vice-Chairman and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

WP.Nos.34864, 34866, 34872, 34876, 34879, 34886, 34892 and 34912 of 2016

¶3

COMMON ORDER :

¶4

Heard the counsel for petitioners, Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Sri B. Mayur Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, for respondents.

¶5

2. The issue raised in these Writ Petitions is admittedly covered by the order dt.29.01.2016 in W.P.Nos.36337 of 2012 and batch.

¶6

3. In the said batch, this Court dealt with the cases of drivers such as the petitioners who were declared medically unfit and who were reemployed as Shramiks and who were denied payment of salary from the date of their declaration as medically unfit till the date of reemployment.

¶7

4. It is not in dispute that petitioners’ case also falls under the same category.

¶8

5. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the directions issued in the said order which are as under :

¶9

(i) All the drivers who are not assigned work after they were declared as medically unfit are entitled to pay and allowances attached to the post of Driver till they were retired from service

¶10

MSR,J wp_34864_2016 &batch

¶11

::2::

¶12

/ alternative job is provided to them. They shall be paid arrears of pay and allowances with 8 % interest from the due date till the date of payment. This direction is general and applicable to all Drivers. The Corporations shall undertake review of all such claims and shall ensure that no driver is denied pay and allowances on this issue. The order shall be complied within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶13

(ii) Petitioners and all Drivers who are declared as unfit to drive on account of ‘acquiring disability’ while in service are entitled to provision of alternative job as a matter of course. The Corporations shall endeavor to provide alternative job of the same status. For any reason, alternative job of the same status is not possible and the drivers are adjusted in any other post, they shall be paid the same pay and allowances as were paid to them as Drivers including the annual increments.

¶14

(iii) If alternative job cannot be provided, the Drivers shall be kept in a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or till he attains the age of superannuation whichever is earlier and shall be paid pay and allowances of the post of Drivers until they attain the age of superannuation.

¶15

(iv) These directions are applicable to all similarly situated drivers.

¶16

MSR,J wp_34864_2016 &batch

¶17

::3::

¶18

6. However, in respect of payment of arrears of pay and allowances, the respondents shall take into account amounts already paid towards such pay and allowances for the period-in-question.

¶19

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs.

¶20

8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in these Writ Petitions, shall stand closed.

¶21

__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶22

Date: 18-10-2016 Ndr/*

Md.Habeeb, v. The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md.Habeeb, v. The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director

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

P.Koti Reddy Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

R.Sudarshan. Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Narra Narsimha Rao Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P.

Md. Hashamuddin, Vs The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director

Ali Arif Vs Masjid-e-Hussain

Md.Yakub Khan, Vs The Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Tsrtc