Dismissed

Gownicadi Venkateswar v. Tsrtc and 5 others

Telangana HC5 Mar 2020WP/1791/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed a writ petition filed by a contract driver against TSRTC challenging the deferred regularization of his services. The court held there is no inherent right for a contract driver to regularization and upheld a three-year deferment due to rash driving causing a fatal accident.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and pending miscellaneous petitions stood closed.

Gownicadi Venkateswar Vs Tsrtc and 5 others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 1791 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Gownicadi Venkateswar, S/o G. Erranna, Aged 36, Driver, TSRTC, Kodada Depot, Suryapet District, Native of Jagatpally Village, Wanaparthy Mandal and District.

¶8

AND

¶9

TSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Hyderabad

¶10

The Regional Manager, TSRTC, Nalgonda Region

¶11

The Regional Manager, TSRTC, Mahabubnagar Region

¶12

The Divisional Manager, Suryapet Division

¶13

The Depot Manager, Yadaairigutta Depot

¶14

The Depot Manager, Kodad Depot Suryapet District.

¶15

...PET|T|ONER

¶16

,..RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Itrlandamus declaring the action of the Respondents as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, violation of Article 14,^'16 and 19 of the Constitution of lndia and violation of TSRTC CCA Regulations and Circular PD-005 of 2009 dated 23.2.2009 and set aside the same and direct the Respondents to modify the said punishment imposed and to regularise the petitioner service on par with the petitioners batchmates. lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶18

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 2nd Respondent to take immediate action to modify the^punishment and regularize the petitioner services and fix the^petitioner's basic-pay as^per the Circular in-force on par with the petitioner's batchmates and direct the Respondents to pay the revised salary from the date of the petitioner re-instatement into serviceCounsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MADDILETI MARAMUNAGALA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI A. RAVI BABU^(SC FOR TSRTC)

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.L791 OF 2O2O

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Ravi Babu, learned standing counsel lor the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation for the respondents.

¶26

Petitioner 'r,as employed as Contract Driver in the respondent - Corporation in the year 201-4. On O8.08.2017, petitioner was assigned bus bearing No.AP 292 0978. It was alleged that while driving the said bus, petitioner lacked anticipation causing a fatal accident to a two wheeler rider. Disciplinary proceedings initiated on the said allegation culminated in punishment of removal from service. Appeal preferred against the same was confirmed. The revisional authority modified the punishment to that of reinstatement into service as afresh and denied regularization claim for a period of three years. Petitioner challenges the denial of regularization for a period of three years in this writ petition.

¶27

It is not in dispute that there was a fatal accident by the petitioner and the charges held proved. Even the revisional authority agrees with the findings recorded by the disciplinary authorit5r and imposing punishment. However, having regard to the plea raised by the petitioner, revisional authority modified the punishment. Petitioner is a contract employee. A contract employee is liable for termination at any time and more so if his conduct is not satisfactory, such termination can be resorted to at any time. Against the contract employee, the only punishment

¶28

¶29

that can be imposed is in the form of termination of contract. However, the revisinal authority exercised its discretion to grant fresh employment to the petitioner. Since no other punishment can be imposed against a contract driver, petitioner was ordered for deferment of regularization claim for a period of three years. In other words, the revisional authorify desired to assess the performance of the petitioner in the next three years as a contract employee and if satisfied with his performance, competent authority may grant regularization of services as regular driver.

¶30

Since no other punishment can be imposed and the allegation of rash and negligent driving held proved, I do not see any error in the order of the revisional authority in deferring regularization by three years. It is apt to note at this stage that there is no manner of right vested in a contract driver to seek regularization as a matter of course. Further, granting the entire benefit of service or granting regularization forthwith would amount to conlerring undue favour to a contract driver, who indulged in rash and negligent driving causing fatal accident as compared to other drivers who were sincere in working and rendered unblemished service.

¶31

The same issue was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in APSRTC and others v. A.U.M. Rao and othersr. The Supreme Court he1d, the contract employee, against whom disciplinary action was taken resulting in appropriate punishment, cannot be treated on par with other employees against whom no adverse decision is taken.

¶32

'lzotey^{t+ scc ool}

¶33

-4-

¶34

In view of the same, I do not see any error in the decision arrived at by the revisional authority warranting interference by this Court. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶35

SD/.SD/.K.PRABHAKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

\ I

,TRUE COPY'

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to Sri Maddileti Maramunagala Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri A. Ravi Babu, SC FOR TSRTC [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies

CHR A.l},-

HIGH^COURT

DATED:0510312020

{ <$L s rA r€
.t
15 r,N 2m a
*
)

¶45

ORDER

¶46

W.P.No.1791 of 2020

¶47

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETIT!ON WITHOUT COSTS

Gownicadi Venkateswar v. Tsrtc and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gownicadi Venkateswar v. Tsrtc and 5 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Guvva Anjaneyulu, Ex- Estates Officer Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

P. Jai Kishan, Vs The District Collector (P.W)

S. Vamshi Krishna, Vs The State of Telangana

Kummari Krishna Murthy Vs The Telangana State Public Service Commission (Tspsc)

The Depot Manager Vs S.Ramesh

Smt.Shaik , Patan Seema Sulthana Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others