Dismissed

T. Narasimha Rao v. T.S.R.T.C. and 2 Others

Telangana HC2 Sept 2020WP/14527/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged oral direction assigning him duties of Conductor instead of his assigned post of Stores Supervisor. Court found PETITIONER substantive post is Conductor and pay remained same; failed to exhaust remedies. Writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Petitioner may vent grievance by making a representation to the Regional Manager/2nd respondent.

T. Narasimha Rao Vs T.S.R.T.C. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 14527 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

T. Narasrmha Rao, S/o. T. Ramaiah, Aged about 44 Years, Occ.Store Supervisor, TSRTC, R/o Choutapally Village, l,4attampalle N,4andal, Suryapet District, Telanga na.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

T.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its ltrlanaging Director, Bus Bhavan I,4usheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Regional lVlanager, T.S.R.T.C., Nalgonda Region, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶13

The Depot Manager, T.S.R.T.C,, Kodad Depot, Kodad, Nalgonda District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in assigning the duties of a Conductor to the petitioner orally from the post of Store Supervisor (out of designation turn) without any proceedings or directions by the 1st and 2nd respondents are illegal, arbitrary and discriminative in nature and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Store Supervisor in the 3rd respondent depot or any other clerical post other than Conductor post.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶17

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 direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Store Supervisor in the 3rd respondent depot, Pending disposal of the Writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI G. RAVI MOHAN

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A. RAVI BABU, SC FOR TSRTC

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO. 14527 of 2O2O

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel for respondent corporation.

¶25

Petitioner holds the substantive post of conductor. According to petitioner, in the year 2013, he was given the assignment as Stores Supervisor and ever since has been continuing as such. However, recently by oral directions of the Depot Manager, he is now asked to discharge the dutics as conductor and same is illegal. According to learned counsel lor petitioner, as the petitioner possesses the requisite qualification and eligibility to be a Stores Supervisor and many of his juniors are continuing as Stores Supervisors, dispensing the petitioner from the assignment of Stores Supervisor is illegal.

¶26

It is not in dispute that the substantive post of petitioner is conductor and by lollowing the due process he l,l,as not appointed as Stores Supervisor and while working as Stores Supervisor, petitioner continued to draw the same pay and allowances as admissible to the post of conductor. That being so, even assuming that petitioner is nou' asked to u,ork as conductor, that being his substantive post, it cannot be said that service conditions of the petitioner are affected b1' such decision.

¶27

With reference to the allegation that rvhile disturbing the pctitioncr, certain juniors to petitioners are allou'ed to continLle to discharge the Iunctions of Stores Supervisor, pctitioner or-rght to have /cntililted his grievance to the Depot Manager or l-righer:rllthoritics bLlt hc has chosen to streiigh tau'a-r, institute the u'rit perition.

¶28

Though learned counsel for petitioner sought to contend that on 18.8.2020 petitioner has submitted a representarion to the Regional Manager, Nalgonda and the Depot Managerf2nd and 3.d respondents herein, learned standing counsel, on instructions, submitted that no such representation is received by respondents.

¶29

That being so, the Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, this order does not come in the way of^{petitioner making} a^{representationto the} Regional Manager/2"d respondent^{ventilating his grievance. As noted} above if such a representation^{is made, the 2I'i respondentshall consider} thc same and take appropriate^{decisionasrvarranted bylaw} cxpeditiousllr. No costs.^{Miscellaneous petitions if any pending,stand} closed.

¶30

s D/- N clttTffir i'#[ts,EiR //TRUE^coPY/' ,ECTto[^oFFtcER

¶31

To,

¶32

1 One CC^{to Sri G Ravi Mohan' AdvocateIOPUC]} 2 One CC^{to Sri A RaviBabu'SC for TSRTC' AdvocateIOPUCI}

¶33

Two^{CD CoPies}

HIGH^COURT

DATED:02/09/2020

ORDER

lo 0 B sEP 2$2il il
;: ./
1:l .z/
-tlz

¶39

WP.No.14527^{of 2020}

¶40

DISMISSING^THEWP WITHOUT^COSTS

T. Narasimha Rao v. T.S.R.T.C. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Narasimha Rao v. T.S.R.T.C. and 2 Others

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

Battapothula Srinu Vs The State of Telangana

Ravula Vimala Vs The State of Telangana

Jatothu Manjula Vs The Union of India

Pilli Apparao, Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

Alya Naik Vs The State of Telangana

T.Mohan Kumar Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others