Allowed

Apsrtc (Now Tsrtc) and 2 others v. S.Bal Raj

Telangana HC7 Jul 2023WA/73/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Appeal was filed by the respondents against orders in W.P. No. 38697 of 2014 which directed payment of back-wages, seniority, and increments for a post the respondent was declared unfit for. The High Court set aside the lower order, holding that the respondent was not entitled to arrears as the issue was already adjudicated in a prior judgment of this court.

What did the court decide?

The order in WP No. 38697 of 2014 passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside.

Apsrtc (Now Tsrtc) and 2 others Vs S.Bal Raj — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^331E ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINANO KUMAR SHAVILI

¶6

THE HoNouRABLE sRr rrrr,"ttoorAvARApu RAJE'HWAR RAo

¶7

WRIT APPEAL N O: 73 OF 2023

¶8

writ Appeal under clause 1s of the Letters parent preferred against the order dated 31l1Ol2O22inWP No. 38697 of 2014 on the fite of the High CoJrt.

¶9

Between:

¶10

APSRTC (Now TSRTC), R"p. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶11

Z. I|g Regional Manager, APSRTC (Now TSRTC), Mahabubnagar Region, Mahabubnagar.^-

¶12

The Depot Malrager, APSRTC (Now TSRTC) Bus Depot, Kalwakurthy, Mahabubnagar District.

¶13

AND

¶14

...APPELLANTS

¶15

S. Bal. Raj, S/o.Late Pultaiah, aged 45 years, Occ Shramik, E.No. 280g70, flq. .N9r,^{Registration Office Naltevartni Road, Nagarkurnool, ffrlaniOuOnigar} District.

¶16

...RESPONDENT

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶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 suspend orders passed in W.P No.38697 of 2014, dt.31 .10.2022.

¶19

Counsel for the Appellant : SRt THOOM SR|N|VAS SC FOR TSRTC

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents : SRI V. NARASTMHA GOUD

¶21

The Court delivered the following : JUDGMENT

¶22

HON'I}LE, SRI JUSTICE ABTIINAND KUMAIT SIIAVTLI

¶23

AND

¶24

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJITSHWAR I{AO W.A.No.73 ot2023

¶25

JUDGMENT: Honble Si Jusnce Abli^dnd Kumot Shavnl

¶26

This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders passed by rhe learned Single Judge of this Court in W.p.No.3869l ol' 2014 dt.lt-10-2022.

¶27

Heard Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counscl for the TSRTC, appearing lor the pctitioners and Sri V.Narasirnha Coud, leamed counsel for thc respondent.

¶28

It has been contended by thc appcllants that the respondent was working as a Conductor rvith the appellants and thc respondent himself has unauthorizedly madc absent tiom dutics during the period from 23-05-1997 ro 3l-05-1997 and the disciplinary authority has construcd the same as rnisconduct and initiated the disciplinary proceedings and after conducting a detailed enquiry and for the proven rnisconduct. the disciplinary autiroritl' has imposed punishrnent of rernoval fror.n serv ice on thc respotldcnt vide ordcrs dt.l7-03-1998. Aggricvcd b1, tirc ordels o1'rcmoval. the rcspondcnr

¶29

.\tas.i li I(i.N.l 1\ \ '(r 1l, i:021

¶30

¶31

has applJachg i the Labour Courl-ll by filing I.D.IJo_-j4. rl 20(r0 unrler Sectior .l-h (l i ri the industrial Disputes Act, I9.]7 iin( llle ( asc \,as rcf'err ecl to Lo..'t<iaiat for amicable settlerncnt anri the r:sPor.r,lent ha-r age.ic'e',1 l. L,: rgrpointed afresh loosing his se.i.r.ilv of irLrotrt sci,en ),cars^an,j hc^,,,as sent to medical fitness in pursuanc3 tr. Lh: atvard passcri b'i rh(' ol(- Adalat. In the medical fitness, t ri as lirut.rc that l-ie \'r1s sulfcring -orl defective eye vision and he wrrs der;131.36 rrnfrt tbr the posi. ol',-lc rductor. Accordingly, the case of thc retp tntlenl uzrs rc.jcctcd br r rc ;tppe llants vide pr.ocecdings dt.29. ()1)_2(.02 lbL rcinstatinr itii in pLrrsuirnce to the arvard ol tlic lrit Aclaiar. Aq-qriocl hv tti, said orders in rcjecting the rcs|ondcrLt ; claim tbr !'e iilrit.! Lr=,,1c',. lh,: rcspondenr. has approaclicd this CoLrr b. iilitrg \'.1'.No.i7l() ,1'2003 and this Coufi rvas pleast.rJ ro 5q 41j1!g rilr: rc.iectiorr ordcn dt.29-06-2002 and directcd the apl)ellarlts o consider thc clLsc oI tl ,; rcspondcnt lor providing suitable ancl altt:rnativ,c cr.plo1'ntr:nt irr ih: Corporation as per the provisio is .[.iie :ti.n 47 ol' the I)ers.rL-s r"ir i )isabilitics (rlqual opportunities. I )rotecr ic r .r' [ii-srrts and l.ull i)ar-Lic :.xrrion) Act. i995 (for brevity^,th,: Act. J995') i,icle orders ili.lf -r), -:0tr8. Accordingly, the rcspcndclrt \as sivcn alterttative enrp i)\ lnenl of Shramik and he has oncr: aqaitr I pproachcd this cou't.i'iri.1r \/.P.No.22077 of 20ll secking wril clrr4arrclarr.s

¶32

\ K..1 & ItitN-J N.A. \o.71 ol 202l

¶33

¶34

to declar€ thc action of the appellants^{in not protecting the pay scale of} carlier post of Conductor as arbitrary^{and illegal andsought} consequential direction to direct the^{appellants to pay thc respondent's} salary and the pay scale of Conductor^{by revising thc samelrolntime} to time by protecting his^pay and^{service in thc earlier post of} Conductor. This Court was^pleased to^{dispose of the Writ Petition vide} orders dt.04-08-2011 directing tho appellants^{to cxtcnd the bcncfitof} pay protection in terms of Section 47 of the Act,^{1995 w'ithin a pcriod} of six rveeks frorn the date of this order^{and it furthcr clariticd that the} respondent was not howcver be^{entitledany arrcarson this count'} Accordingly, the pay of the^{respondentrvas protccted and the} respondent has once again^{approachedthis Court blliting} W.P.No.38697 of 2014 seeking a^{Writ of Merndamusdeclaringthe} action of appellants in not^{countingthe period ltorn the datc of} dcctaring hirn unfit for the^post of^{Conductor1il[ hc rvasallorvcd tbr} rluty on 04-l l-2008 in the alternative^{postof Shramik for thc purpose} o[ seniority, increments^{andwages andthe learned SinglcJudgeol this} Court was^pleased to allow^{the Writ Petitionby directingthc appellants} to consider the case of the respondent^{and grant consequcntial bcnelits} of pay protcction for the^{post ol'Conductorrvith eft'cctliom thc dateon} whioh the post was rescrved lbr the^{pcrsonsundcr disabilitl' andtlre}

¶35

.\K\ | & ItR.i '. \ r)i l02l ^-n;.1

¶36

¶37

pelrtror-rcr. sl all bc cntitlcd lbr hencfits such as back-.' gcs. scnioritl, artrl i;.t r;rcr r rc ,t

¶38

I cantcr! coLrnscl lbr the appellants lrarl co.rt ndcd tha r the rcsponrlcn r':r: ilcclarcd unfit to periornt tire dtirics (tf (- .)r1(lucior [incl I. ,"i (.r( ;, .\ 't i(,Cr.lCri \ i(lC nrOCCCdings dt.29-06 -:l( r().1 ancl $,hcD \.]'.\r .l:1,. 1 1 161yr rlr ]1_n l_.rnna ,,.^" dispcscri oi,lircr:rinq rirc itppcllurrrs l() onsidcr thc cas;o of the responden t lor nrovi,lin.u srrjtahlc alrti tr ltc^.ntrtrr ' ! uri)lo_'rnciti.. thc rcspondcnt rvas.tiven (n llo,n)cn1 its Slrr';tnril, lrn,l t ri,⁽ orrrr rrcvcr .Jirectccl that he sirorrlcl bo g r.cn suitili)ic and ltitr rrlrtir c cnll)l()\ ntcltt iorn thc date <,1 rci la i()D or-(lcrs dl..lt) 0ri-,.t)1tl,\ccordinsi.r. thc appcllants havc co n1;lainr-d thc otll('15 i)l sscrl rr tJris Corrrl t W_p.No.3719 ol it003 (ll l:l_r)4-2(f o8 rult! iir( !l cr rroti Lri qraDting lrack_r.vages liom ()l to tltc

¶39

-) Il c issuo rlhcthcr tho respondent is entitl,rd lir. bacl<\ a9c\ oT n()t l:rs alreadr adjudicated in W P.hro.1207 () t0 I dr.o,t-0tj-2 )l l. , ,lr.:jt.cin rrn ir^(tclnl)t \vas lrade b1, the rr:sp,,n(l(jtrt f()r clairlilt-q i;,rcL-u,q:s antt tiris C.ourt tvas pleased to disposc -.l ,lre \/r-il l)ct ition hr tlit','cr rl I thc up1;cllants onl1, to extend pa., prot( r. iolt to th c I-Csl)on(isn t ii: r11 1. of'sccrioii 17 ol thc Act. 1995 anri tlti; ( ,or rt has

¶40

AKS.J & RIT,J $r.A No.7l oi 202l

¶41

¶42

also r.nade it very clear that he would not be entitled ior any arrears on that count. When the issue whether the respondent is cntitled to thc back-rvags or not was already adjudicated in WP.No.22017 ol 20ll dt.04-08-2011. again the question of granting back-rvages to the rcspondent would not arise again

¶43

The leamed Single Judge without appreciating an1' ol the contcntiorls raised by the appellants had mcchanically allowe d thc Writ ['etition in lavour of respondent and directed the appcllants to par back-u'ages. scniority and incrernents. When thc rcspondent has unsucccssful in the plevious two attempts befbre this Court. he could not lravc clairncd back-u,ages. Therefore. appropriate orders hc^passed in tire Writ Appeal by setting aside the ordcrs in thc Writ l'etition^antl allos the Writ Appeal

¶44

l. Learned counsel for the rcspondent had contcndcd^that the respondcnt was rernoved from service not fbr any cash ancl^ticl<ct inegularities. He absented himself frorn duty owing to ill-hcalth^that too \ a\ back in the year 1997 and that too rvhen hc approaclicd^thc Labour Court. tl-re Labour Courl has rctbrred the tnatlcr^{to the [-ok} Adalat and t.ok Adatat was pleased to scttlc^the case^amicabll'b1' dirccting thc appellants to reinstate the rcspondcnt^{alicsh subjcct tct}

¶45

}:..r& :iP.<sup>j \^{.</sup> \o ll i,t20l.l}

¶46

¶47

:ncdiczrl iltric:. Iloivercr. in tltc nrcdical fltncss, it l,as 1i Lrntl that the

¶48

i-cspond.nt i; .ri '-lcring lront dclect in eyc and thc appell]llts i[steacl of prov id'n-e i l;.:r raiive en.rplovllcnt havc rejec ed his case vide

¶49

plocr:edirtu:. rl l9-i)6-2002 altt t[c sarnc 1,as sct asidc D,, Ihis Courl i1

¶50

W.P.].i. i7 9 ri 2003 b1'.r<lcrs dr.22_04_200g an,i this; lt,.,urt directed Io pror i.ic .tr ta ric an<l allcrnatir c emplol,nrent to tlre n.spondent in tcnlts ,)i ,,'r I i)n .17 ol lhc Act. 1995 u,hich rvould rn,. an that the appclJanrs orri hl to ha'c rcir)statcd thc rcspo,dent u,irh olfi)ot liom 2(/)-0J--lr^rr)l lii .l hc lcalrcrl Sirrglc .ludge rras.justrfied irr llo,r ing the \rrit Pctitrorr rr ih,our-ol rcrprrndcnt as a( nittedly (he cas: ol the rcsponclcnr ri rr r'_' jccted $ ithorrt lbllorving Scction .17 ol- .lrr: Ai:t. 1995.

¶51

'I Ircrciirt -'. lir.'r rrrj no ntcr.its ilt tl.:c i"/l.it Appcal and lhe slrrrrc is iiablc to bc disntis cr

¶52

ll i ris^(lourt hai ine considercd thc rival sultnri.sio rs ntacle b-r' the icr'rrt:ri ..rr.sei ou c:itrrcr sicrc is of thc c.nsrder.od v ow that the rcsponcic tr irir. aIproachcri rhis (.oLrrt b1 filing W p.No. ll, l9 cf 2003 arr<l tlti-.⁽ 1r 11 ,1 11 pleascr! 1o r!is;_.,osc o[-tltc Writ petiticn vi<1,: or.der.s rlt 22-0'j-l()r.ltl ,r I trirectorr l. c.nsider thc c^se ol trre rr:spo.,rcnl rbr ploritlirrr \riir,r )l( and altcrr)ati\c cnrpIovrncnt in lornrs ,tI Scction 47 oi thc /( 1. i(),i^'fhc sairl riilcctron rvill bc only rvitlt tro:ltcctive cllcct bLrl n, r^. , illl ic(rosltccti\ c clle cr. 'l his C<tur.t ne,,zt:r tlir.,.c1ecl i11

¶53

&. tU(N.r \'A ^KS.J No ll ol 2U2,1

¶54

¶55

) )

¶56

thc said casc to considcr his case with retrospective e{-[cct and thc respondent lras oDce again approached this Coufl. lor protecting tris pa1, in the cadrc o[ Conductor by filing W.P.No.22077 of 201 I and this Court was once again pleased to dispose f the Writ petition vide orders dt.04-08-201I rvherein this Court directed to extend pay protoction to thc rcspondent, horvever. this Court rnadc it vcry clear that hc rvould not bc cntitled lor arrcars on this count. When this Court has colnc to conclusion that hc is not cntitlcd to the arrears in the said casc. the learned Single Judgc rvas rxtr justilied in allorving the prcscnt Writ Petition in lavour of the rcspondclrr by directing thc appellants to pay back-wagcs, scniority and increr.nents.

¶57

Therclirlc.^(hc lcarncd Single Judgc erred in directiug the appcllants to pa_r' [racli-rvages, more so. when the issuc rvl.rcthcr^(hc rcspondcnt is cntitlcd lirr back-rvages or not was alrcady adjudicated in W.['.No.22077 ol' 20I I by orders dt.04-08-201 l, rvherein this Court has categorica[[1' held that hc rvould not be eutitled for any arrcars on this couut, again. such dircction could not be issucd in lavour o[' respondent.^{'['hcrclirrc,} thc orders o[ the lcarned Single Judgc are liablc to bc sct asidc

¶58

(: i\ l(l(\ l \ \ \i)-r{,tlr)ll

¶59

¶60

l0 ,\ccordrnglv. thc \rrit Appeal is atl rr,ed ancl rhc

¶61

itnpurrLcc o d(.r ilasscd bv tlic lcarned Sinclc.lu 1gc irr \r,.p.\o.31i697 of 2Cl,i d .3 -^(|r-2022 is set asidc. lhere shall bt no c,rir.,: as ro c()srs.

¶62

I L ,',s a scqucl. thc rlisccllancous pctilions p. ndine. il. an1,.

¶63

shaii sr anrl c ,r.cd.

¶64

SDt- 9.5.6r,*ANJEEVt JOINTREGISTRAR SE,]TION OFFICER

¶65

//TRUE COPY//

¶66

To, l one CC tO Sitr rHootui :Blfflyls_(SC FoRrSlrc) loruol 2 One C,l ro S il V NARASTMHA CbUO, eJ"""rj,, iderrc.l 3. Two CD Cop er; BN GJP^.-.

HIGH COURT

DATED:071071'-023

JUDGMENT

WA.No.73 of^i'.A23

a:7 ' -,y,Z
',f. q^
/ ('
.{'
"( 't
:)
t) I[G NN t
.:.o { /
t
,i
i'

¶72

ALLOWING l^{HE WRIT APPEAL} wtTHoUT^{C( rSiTS}

¶73

rA J
bb \1 lr9

Apsrtc (Now Tsrtc) and 2 others v. S.Bal Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Apsrtc (Now Tsrtc) and 2 others v. S.Bal Raj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India rep by its Secretary to the Govt., Vs a.Tirumala Ajai

Union of India rep by its Secretary to the Govt., Vs G.v.Rama Mohan

C Narayana, R.R. Dist Vs Prl Secy, Education (Se-C and Tbp), Hyd and 6 Ot

Dr. Ganta Sathvika Reddy Vs Dr. D. Praveen Kumar

M.B.Rayudu Vs Vasu Gupta

Smt. Eluri Madhavi Vs Sri Naveen Mittal, IAS