Allowed

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, v. G. Anjilaiah

Telangana HC17 Oct 2022WA/1573/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Bench allowed a writ appeal filed by the Andhra Pradesh SRTC challenging the lower court's order granting an employee continuity of service and seniority benefits. The Court rejected the plea that the employee, having been re-engaged and not challenging the termination, should count past service for seniority and regularisation. The judgment relied on the Supreme Court's decision wh

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment dated 25.1.2013 directing continuity of service is set aside. Seniority of the respondent worker shall be counted with effect from the date of his fresh appointment. The writ app

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1573 OF 2014

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent appeal^preferred against the order d1.23-06-2014^passed in WP.No.29747 of 20'13 on the file of the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its VC & IMD, Mushirabad, Hyderabad.

¶10

The Divisional ltrlanager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Charminar Division, Gowliguda, Hyderabad.

¶11

.APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶12

AND

¶13

G. Anjilaiah, S/o Ramulu, aged 30^years, Contract Conductor, C-981475, Itrlusheerabad depot, Hyderabad.

¶14

.. RESPON DENTM/RIT PETITIONER

¶15

LA. NO: 3 OF 2014(WAMP. NO:3932OF 2014\

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petilion, the High Court^may be^{pleasedto grant} stay of all further^proceedings in^pursuance of the^judgment dt.23-06-201^{4 passed} in WP.No.29747 of 2013 pending disposal of the writ appeal.

¶17

Counsel for the Appellants:SRl N VASUDEVA REDDY(SC FOR RTC)

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent:SRl P GOVINDA RAJULU

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

I loN'llt-ri^sRI .lus'llct,^{ABI ITNANDKUNIARsllA-ll-l} AND ItoYtlt I^{sRt.ltrsTICl\A'1,\VAR,\PL R'\J liS]l\ r\l{ l{lo}

¶21

\' .No.1^7l

¶22

O-RI)EB: 1/',r,[1r'n^{'hL St;.lusticeAbhintnd Kunat !hatili)}

¶23

\'lrr n lhc lr.lattcr^{is takcn up fot ht'aritrg'k::rrrletl}

¶24

Sianding^{(.ounscl appearlnglbr thc aPPCllxntas s't:llrr'} Irat nc,l c,ttttt;cl^{appearingfor the tcspol-rdcllthxd irltilttlrcrl} t5i: Cout1^{that tlre issuc involvcd tnrht rvttt 1lllP('rll li} s.p;ru,-:il^{c()-el.ccl Il- the ordct tlatetl 1-5'Ll3'2rl2fl'rrsst tl br} tltis C.<rrrr'r^{irr \r..'No183 of 2022'}

¶25

1,rll,i\ans^{tlre ordcrclated15032022in \' .'rrS"}

¶26

,rl20l2lrrtllirrreasonsaltkc,this\/rit\irlltlr]isrrls"

¶27

all,^rrr,'ctl. \o^c()sls.

¶28

[iscel] rneoLrs PetiLiotls,^{i[t atlv' llcndiLlt slrlLI] st'trrtl} c,rsccl

¶29

""t"+'Ass+HhAⁱ //rRUE coPY// secff,R orrrcsnⁱ

¶30

to'', . anu u" & MD. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport^{CorporationN'4ushirabad'} uvl"l.uu"o :r. Andhra^{Pradeshstate Road rransportcorporation'} r Tlie Drvisional^Manage

¶31

ialiti;t:+$r3$!-B,EJffi^{r'.smk'5rg!10""u'"io""'} 5 Two cD^copies - er dt:15/03i2022 in w A No' 183 0t^{2022</sup> (Along with^{the Courturo'} EDS tt'ncHA}

HIGH COURT

DATED :1711012022

ORDER

WA.No.1573 of 2014

\
Sl lnu ?r?3 {;
-<br>

¶37

ALLOWING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

¶38

,"Y,,l, @ u+t19\

¶39

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATIS H CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶40

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶41

WRIT APPEAL No.183 of 2022

¶42

JUDGMENT: Per the Hon'ble the Chiel Justice Sari.s/r Ch.tndra Sharma)

¶43

The appellants before this Court (hereafter referred to as, the employer) have filed the present rvrit appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 27.08.20 12 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.212 4l of 2012.

¶44

The facts of the case reveal that the respondent/writ petitioner (hereafter referred to as, the employee) was appointed as a contract driver in the sen iccs of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and aftcr hoiding a departmental. enquiry lor the charge of rash and negligent driving, his services were terminated by an order dated O9.05.2012. Thereafter, he preferred an appeal against the order of termination and the appellate authority, by an order dated 26.05.2O12, 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

¶45

lcarncd Single .Judge has disposed of^{tl're writ petition} rlirectrrg thc ctlployer to extend the benefit^{of continuity of} servicc to llrc crnployee from the date of^{terminationtill the} date oi his rc-cngagement except for^{the periodduring} rvhich he r.as absent. It was also observed^{that the said} r;ontinr-rit1, of service shall be without^{monetary benefits} rLnd slrall be counted only for^{the purpose of regularisation} :it a later t[:ite.

¶46

[.r::.r r.r t,:cl counsel for the employer^{has drawn the} .rttenlion ol tl-ris Court towards^{the judgment delivered by} tl-re FIon lllt: Supreme Court^{in the case of AndhraPradesh} State Road Transport Corporatioa^{v. A.U'M.Raoand} othersl.

¶47

l'araiiraphs 2 and 7 to 14 of the aforesaid^decision

¶48

r.rr' r e1,r-,,tlttced as ttnder:-

¶49

'l'hc tacts lie in a narrow compass. In February 2007, lllc t,ril,ou(lent rvas appointed^{as a driver on contract, aflcr} und'r'r1<,inq a process of selection^{He was workingin waltair} Dciri,l i. tllc district of Visakhapatnam^{withthe appellant.}

¶50

Silrcc the order of the learned^{Single Judge inthe} I)rc:crrr^{caservas cxclusively based on the earlicrdecision} <lattcl 29-2-2012 lch. S.^{Kumar v. A.PSRIC,2012 SCC}

¶51

'^{(2019)l4 s( c 663}

¶52

OnLine AP I l42l , a copy of that judgment has bcen placecl on thc recorcl- The judgment of thc Single Judgc indicates that the earlier case also dealt with persons who ,vere working as contract employees who were :rppointed after a regrtlar selection. In sonte cases, termination orclers were passed rvithout an enquiry on allegations of misconduct \r,hile in other cases, an enquiry was conductccl. The learncd Single Judge, issued the following dircctjons lch. S. Kumat v. A.p. SRTC,2012 SCC Online AP t l42l in terms as agree(l in rhat case: {S. Kamar case [Ch. S. Kumar v.,4.p SR?C, 2012 SCC Online AP r l42l , SCC Online Ap para 7)

¶53

'(I) In cases where the appellatc/revisional aLrtlrorirv has dire.ted re-etrgagrmenr ol th,, collrra. r emplo)'ees as fresh employees, such elnplolees shall bc entitled to bencfit of contiDuity of scivi.; frorn thr dalc oI lermrnation llll the da(e of t.c-cnSio-cn]ent, exccpt for the period during whicll they \verc absen!, ancl the said continuity of sen,ice Srantcd to thc employccs shall be without any monetary bcn.fit and shall Le counrcd only for tlrc purpose r,l .egularisation at a tuture date.

¶54

(2) The continuity of servicc so ordered ill para (l) shall not, hoirever, bc counted Ior tlre pur:pose of seniority and shall not bc allowed to affect the seniority of regularly working employees ol- Ior othcr benefits, but shall be counted only for the purpose of considering their cases for regularjsation.

¶55

(3)^'l'here are also cases rvl.rcrc the or ders ol termination are challenged, either bcfore the appcllate/revisional authorities or belbrc rhis Corrrt after six or scven years of date of terftlination. In all such cases the benefrt of continuitv of sctui.e wrtlrour any monetary benefit and r"-er,BaBcmnrrr s. ordered in para (l) shau be availabte to only to such of these employees .rho have approached the appcllate/revisional authorities or this Court u,ithin lhree years frotn the date of rerminarion

¶56

{4)^{In cases wherc} appeals/revisions or w t pctitions are fiied aftcr three years of thc orders of termination, it is directed that the such petitioner/s shall be considered lor re-engagement as fresh contract employee/s, subject to medical fitttcss and othcr formatities, but he/they shall not be entltled to continuity of past service as under pa.a (l) above.

¶57

¶58

lii :l] ' ,::, i r\lt( r, corrtra,rt elnplolees ha!c pI.ltrr,,l ;rlrpr:rlr , rL \r:i1()I:i, I),rr no^()rd.irs have b.cn I)assrrd llr':'r';r nt,i,ciL,t./r,rvrsionrl arrthoriti,r:r shrll r':)rr'ir,:r r,rr.l rirsposr oi ihosc .lppcills/rrrvisrolrs^rrI riri 1,, l:l f i he rlircctil,ns refct red to abcv,.', i)r,rier^{riil,)irorir.:iore 3l.l-201.1}

¶59

r/i) 1:r , as, ri \1! re no c quiry was conducted,^rhe r,::1,,,r'l.rt c.rl,orarion shall be free to cr)n.Llr.t , rr!lll:rr r! I,rr lil$, into the allegatioDs ol rrra,,' r,rir.d:rl)sen.. ol its ernployccs frofir dut','(,r (,rirfr I ir-!:,rll.n:, oI mrscon.iuct ''

¶60

Ill t]1,' p;('s.nl casc, the worknlan did not choose^to ;1.,,r:i ,,:lhIr th,' i-rnrit)iition^(iI his scn'ices fol]owing thc ,.lr i,i:._ i,r ir' Jr,'sh apPointnlcnt. Ali that was sought {'as t11 ,r li. ill,iLrl I lrt,.c lhe l)cneiit of cotrtinuitl of^{senice honl} th !r,c r,lllr, e;rrlier tetnrinatiolr until re-engagetllent^.

¶61

Sll.lL ir .lirr'clion cou](l not havc becn issuCtl by^thr: le- r:r:ri :iinitL,:.Irriigc 'itlrout the termirlation^{bcing put iuto} .li: ;:iil] l'lrl !tririrt .r: colllirluitl was Ilot^{sllstililrabl(rfor Lhe} s:r r:,il, i, is,,: Llr rl ILrIlcss the^older of^{termi[ationand of the} ll, rl: i l,rrrr rrn. \v,'re .hallenged aitd adjlrdicated^upon, sr:r r ir ur,rrlil r(cas:irril! havc to^{collnt rvi(h effcct fromthe} 1'r^, ,ri rll,r ir,'.ilr .tl)i)(jintrrent.^{As zr matter of} first I)rinciple, , o: r.rr- rrr'. ii lrl'qrarrted 1\ilcll :tn order of terminalion is set .r:r t.^{r,r (]I.ii:i} rhill llrerc is no hiatus^{in scrvicc.}

¶62

10 1]1(rit i r i,ir,rtlrt r r.ason \'hy thc^{judgmellt of the High} (i., r ' :,nn(,1 ir{, susitilined. lt is cotnmon^ground that^the xiri,, ll:r:ri hrr: rcr ruilccl p(rrsonncl^{likethe prcscntrcspondent} (ri1 , L'n riral l,ftcr a r-cgular process of selectiolr. Eventually, rl',, cc) rira, l lr!J)l.,'ees aae to be regularised^Granting an: ri:ririLY ol :rer\ice t() a l)crson^{such as the respondcnt,who} r,.a, ilrrrd 1,, llavc conrmilted misconduct,^would Placc^himon tlll :r.irnr( ilotiirll as other contractual employees^{who havea} rci ,rrl !rLl:ort. blIrnish. Ilcnce, once^{a fresh aPpointment['as} Si<sup>n 1r, lhc Iiril),)ndcntattd neitherthc terminationnor the ftr i:,'r,!l..rg|trtnL \'as^ploced in^{issue, the grant of continuity} ol s 'r1i, e b\ thr: Iligh Court^{w.1smanifestlymisconceived}

¶63

)

¶64

W(: rna, arlso note that lhc callier or(ler o[ thc lcarn.(l Sirqlr Jrrrlge^(ltrt.,d -19-2-2012 lCh. S. Ktotnr v. A.P SR?C', 20ll SC( Oi]-iue Alr 11-lll was in a batch of cases, \'hcrr: tcrrllirliltion ordcrs \'cre issued without }-rolding:rn enquiry itl ccrl:rir cases and aitct holciing an cnquiry in othcrs, thouglt i1r vjolation of lhe pfinciples of rlatural justjce. It lvas it1 thdt .ie',',, oi lhc oralter that thc direction contaitrcd in Clausc 6 oI the^(,per;tlive orcler proyicled thzrt in cases where no enquin, \r'ils condtlcted, thc Co.por.rlion would be at liberty to coltdllct ilr cI]cluiT! in accordance rvith larv, on the allegations c,f miscol1drtr't.

¶65

l\rc fin(l a ()nsiclerable degree of merit ilt thc subruissiorr of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf ol tlrc Cor|oration tltiu in dectding thc entirc bzrtch of L-ascs lry l con:rnon ol-der, ll)e leairned Single Judge as $'ell .rs thc Division Llcnch r-lnlortunatcly lost sight of the Lrcts of each i: r<iivicltt:rl c:,rsc.

¶66

[,-o] tl1e ilbove reasons, lve allow this appeai and :tccordingl,, sct asidc the impugned judgmenl and ordcr riaicd 25^.1-.2013 iA.P SR?C v. A.V.L|. Ra,o,2013 SCC OnLin. AP 10.+91 of the Division Bench. The seniorit-v of rhe r-esp()ncleut r,r,orkrnan shall be counted with effect frorn thc r1:ttt of l:is frcsh appointment in the service of 1he Llorp()ratior.

¶67

Tlr, appr';rL r:. accrrrrlingly, disposecL ol irr thc rbovt .'r':r ri !,,isis."

¶68

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

¶69

In the liglrt o[ t]re aforesaid decision, the order^passed by the learncd Singlc Jrrcig,r,^{r ()} the extcnt the bcneflt of past scrvicc h:rs beerr grantcd lor tl-re purpose of regularisation, is set :rsicle and thc w:-it appeal stands allowed.

¶70

Tl-rc misccllancous itpplic:t1.ions pending, if any, shall stand closerl. Tl.rcle shall be no order as to costs

¶71

SA1'ISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

¶72

ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

¶73

r5.o3.2022 VS

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, v. G. Anjilaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, v. G. Anjilaiah

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

A. Madanmohan Rao, Khammam. Vs the Executive Engineer, Khammam District

G. Komuraiah and 19 Others Vs the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry and 6 Others

G. Aruna Vs Kakatiya University

M.A. Sattar, Vs the Addl. Director General of Police, Railways

Wg.Cdr(Retd) M.G.Chhabria,R.K.Puram, Secunderabad Vs Union of India., Min.of.Defence, and 6 Others

Dr M Kiran Kumar, Hyderabad Vs Dr T Srinivasa Reddy, Hyd and 3 Others