Dismissed

The Apsrtc v. B. Gopya

Telangana HC4 Mar 2020WA/205/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APRTC appealed an order modifying a retired conductor's penal‑ann‑dement and denying monetary benefits. The High Court held remand would cause hardship; the Single Judge interfered in the interests of justice; the order is affirmed but not a precedent.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; impugned order confirmed; miscellaneous petitions dismissed as infructuous; order not a precedent.

The Apsrtc Vs B. Gopya — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF IVARCH

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 205 OF 2019

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause^'1 5 of the Letters Patent Appeal prefened against the order dated OSl11l2O18 passed in Writ Petition No 21433 of 2OO7 on the file of the High Co u rt.

¶9

Between:

¶10

The APSRTC, Rep. by its, Vice Chairmen and, Managing Director, Bus Bavan, l,,4ushirabad, Hyderabad.

¶11

The APSRTC, Rep. by its, Regional [,4anager. Warangal Region, Warangal, Warangal District

¶12

The APSRTC, Rep. by its, Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, Warangal Region, Warangal, Warangal District.

¶13

The APSRTC, Rep. by its, Depot Manager, Mahboobabad Bus Depot, Mahboobabad, Warangal District.

¶14

...APPELLANTS

¶15

AND

¶16

B. Gopya, S/o Kalu, Aged about 47 years, Occ- Conductor, R/o Erjerla (Village), lt/arriopad u (lvl), Warangal District

¶17

...RESPONDENT

¶18

lA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend orders passed in W.P.No. 21433 of 2007, dated 05.11.2018.

¶20

lA NO: 3 OF 2019

¶21

Petition under Section^'1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file additional affidavit and to consider the same as part and parcel of condone delay petition in l.A.No.1 of 2O19 in W.A.No.205 of 2019 in the interest of^justice.

¶22

lA NO: 4 OF 2019

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file additional grounds and to consider the same as part and parcel of W.A.No.205 ol 2019 in the interest of^justice.

¶24

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. B. MAYUR REDDY, SC FOR APSRTC

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent: SRl. G. RAVI MOHAN

¶26

The Court delivered the following:

¶27

HCJ & AAR, J V/. . N,r. 205 of 2019 Dt:04-03-2020

¶28

JUdglOgnf:^{(pcr IJon'bleThc ChiefJusticeSri Raghvendra Singh Chauh,n)}

¶29

The appeilants are aggrieved by the c,rder dated 05-11-2018. passed by a leamed Single Judge in V.P. No. 21433 of 2007, whereby the leamed Singl: Judge has modified the punishment order of the respondent, writ petitioner, from'deferntent of annaa/ inrentent for a pen;ad of two lears^{with rurualatiueefiic/ to one of 'deJiment oJ annaalincrement} for^{a peiod of lwo} lears^{aithoat cunalatiue} ffic/.^{'[he leamed} Single Judge has funher directed that the petitirner would not receive any monetarybenefits.

¶30

Mr. B Nlayur Reddy, the leamed Standing^,3ounsel for the appellants, submits that the modification so r:rade bythe leamed Single Judge has been made without assig ring proper reasons. Morerover, the denial of monetary ben:fits by the Ieamed Single Judge is unclear. Therefore, the leamed counsel has praled that the impugned order sh,>uld be set aside, and the case should be remanded back to the leamed Single Judge.

¶31

On the other hand, Mr. G. Ravi Mohan, .he leamed counsel for the petitioner, submits that in the present case,

¶32

HCJ & AAR, J W.A. No. 20-1 of 2019 Dt 04-03-2020

¶33

¶34

the workman has already retired in the par 2016. Therefore, to force the petitioner to go back to the leamed Single Judge would impose hardship upon a retiree, who is in the dusk of his life. Moreover, the leamed Single Judge has already used the phrase 'ends of justice would be ne/. According to the leamed counsel, since the leamed Single Judge had found the punishment meted out to the petitioner to be shockingly disproponionate to the alleged misconduct, the leamed Single Judge was^justified in modifyng the punishment order m the rnterests ol ll.tstlce.

¶35

l-att/1, since no monetary benefits have been given to the petitioner dunng the punishment period, he would be entitled to receive the monetary benefits only at the end of the punishment period. Therefore, the leamed counsel has opposed the setting aside of the impugned order, and remanding of the case back to the leamed Single Judge.

¶36

Heard both the leamed counsel for the parties, and penxed the impugned order.

¶37

HCJ & AAR, J W. A.. No, 205 of 2019 Dr: 04-03-2020

¶38

¶39

This case turns on its own peculiar facts and circumstances,, ttdn?ebtthat the petitioner has already retired in the year 2016. Therefore, to force the petitione: tc go back to the learned Single Judge is to impose hardr hip upon a retrre e.

¶40

Althor"rgh the leamed Single Judge is not <1uite explicit in his reasonirrg, but the use of the words 'endt ol'lu.rlice woaltl be met'clearly indicates that implicitly his^judiciil conscious has been applied. Since the leamed Single Judge found the imposition of a major punishment to be shockingly disproponionrte to the alleged misconduct, in .he interests of^jwtice, the leamed Single Judge has interfered with the impugned punis hment order.

¶41

It is also to be noted that the writ petition was filed in the lear 20a7, and was finally decided after an inordinate delay of eleven 1ean. Therefore, the petitioner lrad suffered the major punishment for eleven long pan. It is, in these peculiar circumstances, that the leamed Single Judge was justified in modifying the major punishment to rrinor one.

¶42

HCJ & AAR, J \v.A. No. 205 of 2019 Dtt 04-03-2020

¶43

¶44

Moreover, the learned Single Judge has also protected the financial interest of the C-orporation by clearly indicating that the petitioner would not be entitled to any monetary benefit.

¶45

Hence, this C-ourt does not find any iliegality or peweniry in the impugned order. Flowever, it is clarified that this order has been passed in the pecuiiar facts and circumstances of the present case, and should not form a precedent.

¶46

For the reasons stated above, this writ appeal is dismrssed

¶47

As a sequel, misceilaneous petitions, pending^'[ any,,

¶48

stand dismissed as infructuous.

¶49

//TRUE COPY//

¶50

SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR ', tl SECTION OFFICER

¶51

To, '1 . One CC to Sri. B. lt4ayur Reddy, SC for APSRTC (OPUC) 2. One CC to Sri. G. Ravi l/ohan, Advocate (OPUC) 3. Two CD Copies.

PtV

HIGH COURT

DATED:04103i2020

JUDGMENT

WA.No.205 of 2019

C
'7,
xS
/ v
1*') dt
..i.
$ 6*
Il
"iY
J
F1 ) 1i<br>g

¶60

Dismissing the WP Without costs.

¶61

The Apsrtc v. B. Gopya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Apsrtc v. B. Gopya

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

V. Chakradhar Reddy Vs G Raveen Kumar

Swapna Dhuduka Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Smt. G.Kavitha Devi Vs The State of Telangana

The Regional Manager Vs Mohd. Sadiq

Abdul Jabbar Shaik Vs The State of Telangana

Lavudya Shailaja Vs State of Telangana and 5 others