Allowed

A.P.S.R.T.C., v. D.Srinivas

Telangana HC20 Oct 2022WA/122/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court bench disposed of eight writ appeals common to contract employees of APSRTC. Relying on a 2022 Supreme Court decision which denied continuity of service benefits in similar cases, the bench allowed the appeals and set aside a previous Division Bench order.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeals are allowed. The previous order granting continuity of service is set aside. No costs.

A.P.S.R.T.C., Vs D.Srinivas — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY,^{THETWENTIETHDAY OF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI} AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶7

1556 A^ND 1576^0F WRIT AP PEAL^{NOS:144014411537153815431551} 2014 AN^{D 122 AND299 0F 2015}

¶8

W.A.No.1440^{of 2014}

¶9

Writ Appeal^{under clause'15 of the Letters Patent preferred againstthe order dated} ZC.ia.S6tipassed^{in W.P.No.Bl 16 of 2014on thefile of the High Court'}

¶10

Between:

¶11

1 The Vice-Chairman^{and tVlanagingDirector' APSRTC' BusBhavan'} Mushirabad,^{HYderabad, A.P.}

¶12

2 The Dv' Chief^{TrafficManager,APSRTC, Khammam Regionat Khammam,} Khammam District,^A.P.

¶13

The^{Depot Manager,APSRTC', Bhadrachalam Bus Depot' Khammam} District, A.P.

¶14

,..APPELLANTS

¶15

AND

¶16

B. Chand Miya,^{S/o Uddand Saheb,age-d about,32years'ContractDriver (C-} Ssata?ilAi'sRfc,^{enuaru"iul;tb'; Depot'KharirmamDistrict' A P}

¶17

...RESPONDENT

¶18

l.A.NO:3 oF^2014WA P. NO:3 23 F 201

¶19

PetitionUnderSectionl5lcPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto-stay if," op"rution of the^{oider in WP.No.81'16t14 dt.23.06.2014on the file of this} Hon'ble Court,^{pendingdisposalof the writ appeal.}

¶20

Counsel for the^{Appellants: SRI'B.MAYUR REDDY}

¶21

Counsel for the^{Respondent: SRI.P.VENKATESWARRAO0}

Contd..'.2

-2-

W.A.NO: 1 1UF 2A14

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the^{Letters Patent againstthe order passeddated} 23-06-2014 in W.P.No.810B/^{2014. on the file of the High Court.}

¶26

Between:

¶27

The Vice Chairman, APSRTC., Hyderabad,^{Bus Bhavan,Musheerabad,} Hyderabad, A.P.

¶28

The Regional [\4anager, APSRTC,^{Khammam Region at Khammam,} Khammam District, A.P.

¶29

The Depot Manager,^{APSRTC, Bhadrachalam Bus Depot, KhammamDistrict,} A.P.

¶30

...APPELLANTS

¶31

AND

¶32

G. Venkateshwarlu, Khammam Dist.,^{A.P., S/o. Ramaiah,Contract Driver} (C-933065), APSRTC, Bhadrachalam Bus Depot, Khammam^{District, A.P}

¶33

...RESPONDENT

¶34

l.A.NO:3 OF 2014^{(WAMP.NO:3524 OF 2014)}

¶35

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleasedto stay} the operation of the order in^{W.P.No.810812014dates 23.06-2014on the file of} this Hon'ble Court,^pending disposal^{of the writ appeal.}

¶36

Counsel for the Appellants^{: SRI.B.MAYUR REDDY}

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent^{: SRT.P.VENKATESWARA RAO}

¶38

W.A.NO:1537 OF²⁰¹⁴

¶39

Writ Appeal under clause^{15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated} 23-06-2014^{passed in WP.No.5345of 2013. on the file of the High Couft'}

¶40

Between

¶41

,, !:

¶42

ApSRTC, rep.^{by its Vice Chairmanand [tlanaging Director,Mushirabad,} Hyderabad.

¶43

The Dy. Chief^{TrafficN/lanager, APSRTC, Warangal, WarangalDistrict'}

...APPELLANTS

Contd...3

AND

A. Koteswar,, Contract^{Conductor, Warangal-ll Depot, RJo Uligadda Damera Post,} Ogulapur Village, Warangal^District.

¶49

...RESPONDENT

¶50

|.A.NO:3 OF 2014(WAMP.^{NO: 3888 OF 2014)}

¶51

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 pleasedto stay} the operation of the order^{in WP.No.5345of 2013, d.t 23-06-2014 on the file of} this Hon'ble Court^{pendingwrit appeal.}

¶52

Counsel for the Appellants^{: SRI.B.MAYURREDDY}

¶53

Counsel for the Respondent^{: SRI.S.M.SUBHANI}

¶54

W.A. O: 1538 OF 2014

¶55

Writ Appeal under clause^{15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the orderdated} 23.06.2014^passed in^{wPNo.B 14412014 on the file of the Highcourt.}

¶56

Between:

¶57

The Vice-Chairman and^{tt/anaging Director, APSRTC,BusBhavan,} Musheerabad, Hyderabad,^A.P.

¶58

The Dy. Chief Traffic^{Nrlanager,APSRTC, Khammam Region,at Khammam,} Khammam District, A.P.

¶59

The Depot l/lanager,^{APSRTC, Bhadrachalam Bus Depot, KhammamDistrict,} A.P.

¶60

...APPELLANTS

¶61

AND

¶62

l. Daruga, S/o. Narayana, Aged^{about 33 years, C_ontract Dlver (C-826489),} APSRTC, Bhadrachalam Bus^{Depot, KhammamDistrict, A.P.}

¶63

...RESPONDENT

¶64

¶65

|.A.NO: 3 OF 2014(WAMP. NO: 3889^{OF 2014)}

¶66

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^High Court^may be^{pleasedto stay} the operation of the order in WP.No.81 44 of 2014 dated 23.6.2014^{on the file of} this Hon'ble Court^pending writ appeal.

¶67

Gounsel for the Appellants : SRI.B.MAYUR REDDY

¶68

Counsel for the Respondents^: SRI.P.VENKATESWAR^RAO

¶69

Contd....4

¶70

¶71

W.A.NO: 1543^{OF 20'14}

¶72

WritAppealunderclausel5oftheLettersPatentpreferredagainsttheorderdated )i.n}.iOru^{passed in WP.No.9850i2014on the file of the High Court'}

¶73

Between:

¶74

APSRTC rep.^{by its Vice Chairmanand l\rlanagingDirector' Mushirabad'} Hyderabad.

¶75

APSRTC,^{rep. by its Dy ChiefTraffic[t'4anager'}

¶76

APSRTC,^{rep. by its Depot lr'4anager,APSRTC' Adilabad Depot'Adilabad'} Adilabad District.

¶77

...APPELLANTS

¶78

AND

¶79

A. Shiva Kumar,^{E.925452, ContractDriver,Aged about 35 years' S/o Shankar'} Bhainsa Depot,^{Bhainsa, AdilabadDistrict'}

¶80

...RESPONDENT

¶81

l.A.NO:3 oF 2014^{(WAMPNO: 3894 OF 2014)}

¶82

PetitionunderSectionl5,lCPCprayingtlratinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition, the High Court maybe pleasedto..stay} if)" op"rution^{of the order in WP.No 9850 of 2014, dt' 23-06-2014 on the file of} this Hon'le Court^{pendingwrit appeal'}

¶83

Counsel for the^{Appellants: SRI'B'MAYURREDDY}

¶84

Counsel for^{the Respondents: SRI'P'GOVINDA RAJULU}

¶85

W.A. NO:^{1551 0F 2014}

¶86

WritAppealunderclausel5oftheLettersPatentpreferredagainsttheorderdated zi.iA.Lbli^{passed in W.P.No.8049/2014on the file of the High Court'}

¶87

Between:

¶88

The Vice-Chairman^{&tvlanagingDirector' APSRTC' Bus Bhavan'} Musheerabad,^{HYderabad,A P'}

¶89

The Dv.^{Chief TrafficManager,} .^{A?SRJQ'Ivlahaboobnagar Regionat} lvlahab6obnagar.^{Mahaboobnagar lJlstflct' A t''}

¶90

The Depot^{Manager' APSRTC,Achampet Bus Depot' Mahaboobnagar} District, A.P.

...APPELLANTS

Contd....5

AND

S. Saidamma, W/o. Tirupathaiah, Aged about 25 years, Contract Conductor (C-921812), APSRTC, Achampet Bus Depot, [,4aha boobnagar District, A.P.

¶95

,.,RESPONDENT

¶96

l.A.NO:3 OF 2014(WAMP. NO: 3907 OF 2014)

¶97

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 stay the operation of the order in W.P.No.8049 of 2014 dated: 23-06-2014 on the file of this Hon'ble Court,^pending writ appeal.

¶98

Counsel for the Appellants : SRI.B.MAYUR REDDY

¶99

Counsel for the Respondent : SRI.P.VENKATESWAR RAO

¶100

W.A.NO:1556 OF 2014

¶101

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred agarnst the order dated 23.06.2O14 passed in WP.No.9091/2014 on the file of the High Court.

¶102

Between:

¶103

A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, l,4usheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶104

The Dy Chief Traffic [\4anager, APSRTC, Warangal, Warangal District.

¶105

...APPELLANTS

¶106

AND

¶107

tMd. Amjad, C 932088, Conductor, Hanmakonda Depot, aged 35 years, H.No.1-3 & Kogalvai, Atmakur, Warangal.

¶108

.,.RESPONDENT

¶109

l.A.NO:3 OF 2014(WAMP. NO: 3913 OF 2014)

¶110

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 stay the operation of the order in WPNo.909'1 12014 dated 23.06.2014 on the file of this Hon'ble Court pending disposal writ appeal.

¶111

Counsel for the Appellants : SRI.B.MAYUR REDDY

¶112

Counsel for the Respondent : SRI.P.GOVINDA RAJULU

Contd....6

W.A.NO: 1576 OF 2014

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 23.06.2014 passed in W.P.No.1 1013 of 2014 on the file of the High Court.

¶117

Between:

¶118

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and lvlanaging Direction, It/usheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶119

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Dy. Chief Traffic Manger, Mahabubnagar, N,4ahabubnagar Distrrct.

¶120

...APPELLANTS

¶121

AND

¶122

Zakheer Hussain, aged about 35 years, C.922565, Contract Conductor, S/o. Pahalwan, Nimmabai Gadda, Badepally, Jadcharla, lvlahabubnagar District.

¶123

...RESPONDENT

¶124

|.A.NO:3 OF 2014(WAMP. NO: 3935 OF 2014\

¶125

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 stay the operation of the Order in W.P. No. 11013/ 2014 d|.23-06-2014 on the file of this Hon'ble Court pending writ appeal.

¶126

Counsel for the Appellants : SRI.B.MAYUR REDDY

¶127

Counsel for the Respondent : SRI.P.GOVINDA RAJULU

¶128

W.A.NO: 122 OF 2015

¶129

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 23-06-2014 passed in WP.No.33569 of 2013. on the file of the High Court.

¶130

Between:

¶131

A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Vice Chairman and lt/anaging Director, [\rlusheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶132

The Dy Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Karimnagar Region, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

...APPELLANTS

Contd. . ...7

-7-

AND

D.Srinivas, S/o. Balaiah, aged 30^years, Contract Driver, C.No.291'19, R/o. Elabaka, Veenavanka fVlandal, lVetpally depot, Karimnagar District.

¶138

.RESPONDENT

¶139

|.A.NO:1 OF 2015(WAMP. NO: 352 OF 2015)

¶140

Petition underSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Order in WP.No.33569/2013 dt. 23.06.2014 on the file of this Hon'ble Court pending writ appeal.

¶141

Counsel for the Appellants : M/S.DANDA RADHIKA (SC FOR APSRTC)

¶142

Counsel for the Respondent : SRI.P.GOVINDA RAJULU

¶143

W.A.NO: 299 OF 2015

¶144

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 23-06-2014 made in WP.No.1150B of 2013. on the file of the High Court.

¶145

Between:

¶146

The Vice-Chairman and lVanaging Director, APSRTC., Hyderabad, APSRTC, Bus Bhavan, f\4ushirabad, Hyderabad, A.P.

¶147

The Regional lVanager, APSRTC, Karimnagar District.

¶148

...APPELLANTS

¶149

AND

¶150

M. Ravinder, S/o. Devagoud, aged 36 years, Contract Conductor, Metpally Depot, C-29643, [Vetpally, Karimnagar District.

¶151

...RESPONDENT

¶152

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2015(WAMP. NO: 902 OF 2015)

¶153

r^)i.

¶154

Petition underSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the order in WP.No.11508 of 2013, dt. 23-06-2014 on the file of this Hon'ble Court pending disposal of the writ appeal.

¶155

Counsel for the Appellants : M/s.DANDA RADHIKA (SC FOR APSRTC)

¶156

Counsel for the Respondents : SR!.P.GOVINDA RAJULU

¶157

The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT

l, t' I I I I I{ I

THE HON'B LE SRI JUSTICE AB HINAND KUMAR

¶162

AND

¶163

H tB SRI JU NAMA RAJ

¶164

WRIT &1 576 Nos.744o-of 20141441, and I122 537 &,2gg1538of 152043, 15 1551 t 1556

¶165

COMMON JUDGMENT i per the Hon'ble sri Justice Abrtilrunci Kumar shauitt)

¶166

when the matter is taken up for hearing, iearned counsei appearing for the appeflants contended that a similar issue has fallen for consideration before the Division Bench of this court in w.A.No.1B3 of 2022 and the Division Bench of this court was pieased to allow the writ Appear uid.e orders dated 1s.03.20 22 and, therefore, the present writ Appeal also deserves to be a-lrowed.

¶167

2 Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has not disputed about the said fact.

¶168

¶169

3' In view of the said submission, the writ Appeals deserve to be ailowed by following the order in w.A.No.183 of 2022 dated 15.O3.2022.

¶170

4 Accordingty, the writ Appeals are allowed. No costs

¶171

2 AKS,J &RRIT,J W.A..l[os. 1440 of 2014&batch

¶172

I I t

¶173

Miscellaneous^{petitions pending,ifany, shall stand}

¶174

closed.

¶175

//TRUE COPYII

¶176

SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO I JOrNT REGTSTFIAR I ./ t JZ/

¶177

SECTION OFFICER

¶178

¶179

One CC to M/S.DANDA RADHIKA (SC FOR APSRTC) [OPUC]

¶180

One CC to SRI.P.GOVINDA RAJULU, Advocate [OPUC]

¶181

One CC to SRI.B.MAYUR REDDY, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶182

One CC to SRI.P.VENKATESWAR RAO, Advocate^(OPUC)

¶183

Two CD Copies

¶184

One spare copy

¶185

(Along with a copy of the order in W.A.No.183 of 2022, dated 15-3-2022 to this^judgment)

S.A. LS

t/,

HIGH COURT

DATED:2011012022

COMMON JUDGMENT

WA.NOS :1440, 1441, 1537, 1 538, 1543, 1 551,¹ 556 AND 1576 0F 2014 AND 122 AND 299 0F²⁰¹⁵

¶192

't STA r4:
q
a'
O4 JAt{ 2$23
o i,
r:7gr' r.''"':':'
J>J'aej" -

¶193

ALLOWING THE^{WRIT APPEALS}

);

WITHOUT COSTS.

1
A-
W<br>a;)
b

HON'BLE SRI KUMAR S

THE CHANDRA

AND

WRIT APPEAL No.183 of 2o22

¶201

JUDGMENTi per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sari-sh Cltandra Sharma)

¶202

The appellants before this Court (hereafter referred to as, the employer) have filed the present writ appeal being aggrieved, by the order dated 27.O8.2O12 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.2l24l of 2072.

¶203

¶204

The facts of the case reveal that the respondent/writ petitioner (hereafter referred to &S, the employee) was appointed as a contract driver in the services of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and after holding a departmental enquiry for the charge of rash and negligent driving, his services were terminated by an order dated O9.O5.2O12. Thereafter, he preferred an appeai against the order of termination and the appellate authority, by an order dated 26.05.2012, has directed reengagement of the employee as a contract driver. However, he was denied the continuity of service, attendant and consequential benefits, including regularisation. The

¶205

¶206

learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ^petition directing the employer to extend the benefit of continuity^of service to the employee from the date of termination^{till the} date of his re-engagement except for the^periodduring which he was absent. It was also observed that^{the said} continuity of service shall be without monetary^benefits and shall be counted only for the purpose of^{regularisation} at a later date.

¶207

Learned counsel for the employer has drawn^the attention of this Court towards the^{judgment delivered by} the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andhra^Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v.^{A.U.M.Rao and} othersl.

¶208

Paragraphs 2 and 7 to 14 of the aforesaid^decision are reproduced as under:-

¶209

"2, The facts lie in a narrow^{compass.In February 2007,} the respondent was appointed^{as a driver on contract, after} undergoing a^{process of selection.He wasworkingin Waltair} Depot in the district^{of Visakhapatnamwith the appellant'}

¶210

e^)i'

¶211

Since the order of the^{learned Single Judge inthe} present case was exclusively^{based on the earlierdecision} d.ated. 29-2-2012 lch.^{S. Kumar v. A.P'SRTC,2012 SCC}

¶212

' 1zoto1t4^{scc 663}

¶213

¶214

Onlihe AP 11421, a copy ofthatjudgment has been placed on the record. The judgment of the Single Judge indicates that the earlier case also dealt with persons who were working as contract employees who were appointed after a regular selection. In some cases, termination orders wcre passed without an enquiry on allegations of misconduct while in other cases, an enquiry was conducted. The learned Single Judge, issued the following directions [Ch. S. Kumar v. A.p. SRTC, 2Ol2 SCC Online AP ll42l in terms as agreed in that case: (S. Kumar case [Ch. S. Kumar v. A.p. SRTC, 2012 SCC Online AP 11421, SCC OnLine Ap para 7)

¶215

"(1) In cases where the appellate/revisional autl-rority has directed re-engagement of tl-re colttract employees as fresh employees, such employees shall be entitled to benefit of continuity of service from the date of termination till the date of re-engagement, except for.the period during which they rveie"absent, and the said continuity of service granted to the employees shall be without any monetary benefit and shall be counted only for the purpose of regularisation at a future date.

¶216

(2) The continuity of service so ordered in para (1) shall not, however, be counted for the purpose of seniority and shall not be ailowed to affect the seniority of regularly working employees or for other benefits, but shall be counted only for the purpose of considering their cases for regularisation.

¶217

(3) There are also cases where the orders of termination are challenged, either before the appeilate/revisional authorities or before this Court, after six or seven years of date of termination. In all such cases the benefit of continuity of service without any monetary benefit and re-engagement so ordered in para (1) shall be available to only to such of these. employees who have approached the appellate/revisional authorities or this Court within three years from the date of termination.

¶218

(4) In cases where appeals/revisions or writ petittons are filed after threer yefrs of the orders of termination, it is directifr that the such petitioner/s shall be considered for re-engagement as fresh contract employbe/s, subject to medical litness and other formalities, but he/they shall not be entitled to continuity ofpast service as under para (l) above.

¶219

¶220

¶221

(5) In cases where contract employees have^preferred appeals/revisions, but no orders have^beenpassed therein, the appellate/revisional authorities^shall entertain and dispose of those appeals/revisionsⁱⁿ tl-re light of the' directions referred to above, preferably on or before 3l-3-2O12.

¶222

(6) In cases where no enquiry was conducted, the respondent Corporation shall be free to conduct enquiry as per law into the allegations of unauthorised absence of its employees from duty or other allegations of misconduct."

¶223

In the present case, the workman did not^chooseto assail either the termination of his services following^the enquiry or the fresh appointment. All that^{was soughtwas} that l-re should have the benefit of continuity of^{service from} the date of the earlier termination until^{re-engagement.}

¶224

Such a direction could not have^been issued^{by the} learnecl Single Judge without the termination^{beingput into} questiorl.^'Ihe grant of continuity was not sustainable for^the simple reason that rtnless the order^of termination^{and of the} fresl-r :rppointment were challenged and adjudicated^upon, seniority would necessarily have to count with^{effect from the} date of the fresh appointment. As a matter of first^principle, continLrity can be granted when an order of termination^{is set} aside , to ensure that there is no hiatus in service.

¶225

There is another reason why the^judgment of the^High Court cannot be sustained. It is common^{ground that the} appellant has recnrited personnel tike the^{present respondent} on contract after a regular^process of selection.^Eventually, the contract employees are to be regularised.^Granting continuity of service to a person such as the^{respondent, who} was found to have committed misconduct, would^{place him on} the same footing as other coj[tractual employees who^{have a} recorcl without blemish. H"ff.,#!..a fresh appointment was given to the respondent and neither the termination nor the fresh engagement was placed in issue, the^{grant of} continuity of service by the High Court was manifestly^{misconceived.}

¶226

,l . ,,/

¶227

)

¶228

We may also note that the earlier order of the learned Single Judge dated 29-2-2012 ICh. S. Kumar v. A.P. SRTC, 2012 SCC Online AP 11421 was in a batch of cases, where termination orders were issued without holding an enquiry in certaln cases and after holding an enquiry in others, though in violation of the principles of natural justice. It was in that view of the matter that the direction contained in Clause 6 of the operative order provided that in cases where no enquiry .,r,as conducted, the Corporation would be at iiberty to conduct an enquiry in accordance with law, on the allegations of misconduct.

¶229

We find a considerable degree of merit in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation that in deciding the entire batch of cases by a common order, the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench unfortunately lost sight of the facts ol each individua-l case.

¶230

For the above reasons, we allow this appeal and accordingly, set aside the impugned^judgment and order dated 25-4-2013 [A.P. SRTC v. A.V.M. Rao, 2Ol3 SCC Onl-ine AP 10491 of the Division Bench. The seniority of the respondent workman shall be counted with effect from the date of his fresh appointment in the service of the Corporation.

¶231

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms. No costs."

¶232

4',

¶233

Meaning thereby, in similar circumstances, the benefit of past service has been denied by the Honble Supreme Court.

¶234

¶235

¶236

In the light of the aforesaid decision, the order passed by the learned Single Judge, to the extent the benefit of past service has been granted for the purpose of regularisation, is set aside and the writ appeal stands allowed.

¶237

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶238

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

¶239

ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

¶240

15.O3.2022 VS

¶241

*li ;

A.P.S.R.T.C., v. D.Srinivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.P.S.R.T.C., v. D.Srinivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. G.Amarnath Vs Union of India

The Dist.Educational Officer,Adilabad District and 3 Others Vs P.Sampath Kumar, Adilabad District and Another

A. Laxmaiah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Y.Sreenivasa Rddy and 2 Ors. Vs Chief Secy. Govt of Ap. Hyd and 8 Ors.

B. Nageswara Rao, Vs Union of India, rep by its Secretary

The Flat Officer Commanding-in-Chief Headquarters, Vs Shri C.Veera Raju