Partly allowed

M. Bal Singh Died per Lr v. Apsrtc, Hyderabad and Another

Telangana HC6 Nov 2023WP/23641/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed by a driver seeking due annual increments withheld by APSRTC, the High Court allowed the petition in part. The court held that increments for August 2010 and 2011 were due but rejected the claim for August 2009 due to a prior deferral order. The respondent was directed to release the dues within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to release annual increments for August 2010 and August 2011 within four weeks.

M. Bal Singh Died per Lr Vs Apsrtc, Hyderabad and… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH^BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 23641 OF 20'11

¶7

Between:

¶8

M. Bal Singh (Died^per LR), S/o:^Paratya ,^{aged about4.8 yqars, Occ:.Driver,} E. No. 675346, R:/o 42-3, Ekkapally,^{Post Shetpally Sangareddy, Via} Nagareddipalli, Lingampalli Mandal, Nizamabad^District.

¶9

Smt. M.Puri, Wo: Late M.Bal Singh, aged about^{37 years,Occ: HouseWife ,} Rto 42 - 3, Ekkapally , Post Shetpally, Sanagareddy ,^{Via Nagareddipalli,} Lingampalli Mandal, Nizamabad^District.

¶10

Petitioner No. 2 is brought on record as^{LR of deceasedsole Petitioner} as per C.O dt-2810612023 in lA 01/2013^{( WPMP43775of 2013} |

¶11

.-.PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 APSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Director,^{Bus Bhavan,RTC 'X'Road,} Hyderabad.

¶14

2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus^{Depot,Kamareddy,Nizamabad Dist.}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the HighCourt may be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction^particularly one^{in the nature of} WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action^{of the respondentsin not releasing} the due increments which are^{due in the month of August 2009, August 2010 and} August 201'l as arbitrary, illegal and^{in violationof Article 14 and 21 of the} Constitution of lndia and consequently^{the petitionerprays this Hon'ble Court to} direct the respondents to^{releasethe due annual incrementsdue in the month of} August 2009, August 2011^{alongwith its arrearsin the interest of justice and fair} play.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(WPMP. NO:28959 OF 2011)

¶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 plear;ed to direct lhe respondents to release the due annual increments due in the monlh of August 2009, August 2010 and August 2011 as requested in the petitioner reprresentation dated 03.05.2011 pending disposal of the above writ petition, in the interest of justice and farr play-

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRt V NARASIMHA GOUD

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: THOOM SRINIVAS (SC FOR TSRTC)

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

l I I j

¶23

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶24

\IIRIT PETITI ON No. 23641 OF 2O11

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

' The action of respondents in not rcleasing the increments due in the months of August 20O9, August 20lO and August 2011 is questioned in this Writ petition. 2. During the pendency of the Writ petition, petirioner (employee) died and his wife Smt. puri was brought on record as his legal representative, uide order dated 2g.06.2O23 in l.A.No. I of 2023.

¶27

The case of employee is that he joined the service of Corporation as driver on 01.02.1996 and his services were regularized with effect trom 0I .01. 19 9T - He was, however, suspended from service on 2T.05.2006 which rcsulted in his removal on 22.08.2006 for causing fatal accident. After availing the remedies of Appeal and Revision unsuccessfully, he raised a dispute (l.D.No. 91 of 20O6) before the Labour Court- , Hyderabad. Through the Award dated OZ.ll.2OO7, the Corporation was directed to reinstate the employee with continuity of service, all attendant benefits and 5O7o backwages. Pursuant thereto, he was reinstated on 03.02.2OOg. Aggrieved

¶28

¶29

_'=d .*-E , ''i

¶30

bV thc saicl Aw'ard, the^{Corporation preferrcd Writ Petiti,rn No} 17985 oi 2OOB,^{u,herein this Court grantedstay o[ thc Au'ard} except rcinstatement and^{the samewas madc absolutc. Ncwthe} complaint ol- the^{cmployee isthat he earned incremt:nt on} completion ol cach^{yearscrvice which are due by August,2OO9} ' August, 20l0 and August 2Oll^{but the same were not relcased} on thc ground that Writ^{Petition is pending. He is sLatedt.o} have made^{(:presentation to the 2"d respondentrequestingthaL} pcndencv ,rf Writ Petition has^{nothing to do with releasing} annu:rl incrcments.^{tt is his grievancethat due to non relt:asc o[} lncrerncnts, he rvas being^{put to loss of Rs.500/-cumulatively} Rs.7OO/- to Rs.SoO/- every^{monthapart fromlosing} proportion€rlcly in claiming the^{overtimeallowances.} 1. on behalf of the Corporation, it is^{stated intheir} countcr that^{petitioner while working as driverinvolvedin an} accident, hc was suspended from^{service on 17.05.2002,later,} suspension was raised and^{punishment of deferment of his} annual ir-rcrcments^for trvo^{yearswas imposed.It is stated that} again for^,:a using fatal^{accident, his annual incremen.twas} dcfcrred fol^{zr perioclof one year on 03.06.2006.He wasplaced} under suspension on 27.05.2006^{and was removedfrom service} on 22.O8.2006. However,^{he was reinstated as per the Arx'ard of}

¶31

¶32

¶33

Labour Court in I.D.No. 9I of 2006 and he reported to duty at Bodhan Depot on 18.02.2008. Hence, he is eligible lor annual increment with effect from 18.03.20 10. Accordingly, the annual increments of petitioner due for March 20 10 and March 20 1 I are to be sent for pre-audit and after getting approval from audit, his annual increments would be paid.

¶34

Learned counsel for petitioner Sri V. Narsimha Goud submits that the action of the Corporation is nothing but taking vengen6s against the employee for approaching the Court of law, hence, it amounts to unfair labour practice on the part of the respondent Corporation.

¶35

Learned Standing Counsel for Corporation Sri Thoom Srinivas reiterating the averments in the counter, submits that Writ Petition may be dismissed.

¶36

It is the specific case o[ respondent Corporation that petitioner's annua-l increment was deferred for a period of one year uide order dated 03.06.2006 in relation to other charge. The same is not challenged in this Writ Petition. Although petitioner is seeking increments for August 2OO9, August 2010 and August 2011, since he was placed under suspension uide order d,ated 27.05.2006 and further removed from service on 22.08.2006, deferment of one increment uide

-'I

order datccl 03.06-2006 will comc into effect after reinstzrtement ic. aftr:r the I-attour Court passed the Award. As such, implemcntarion of defermcnt of one increment will have cffect on the iuc:rcmenr pertains to 2009, thus, petitioner is not entitled lrrr incrcrnent for the said period. With regard to the other incrr:mcnts i.e 2O1O and 2011 are concerned, as per the Arvard, petitioner is entitled for the same.

¶41

In viov of thc above, the Writ^petition is partly allorved. Rcspondcnt Corporation is directed to releasc thc incrcments for August, 20 l0 and August, 201 I within a period of lour u,cr'ks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not alread\ releascd. No costs.

¶42

Conscque ntly, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.

¶43

That Rule Nisi has^{been made absoluteas above-}

¶44

Witness THE HoN'BLE^{THE cHIEF JUSTICEALoKARADHE,on thisMonday,} the Sixth Day of November^{Two Thousand and Twenty Three'}

¶45

SD/.K.SREERAMA MURTHY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// .oy/

¶46

SECTION OFFICER

¶47

To,

¶48

1 APSRTC, Bus Bhavan, RTC^{X Road, Hyderabad.}

¶49

2 The Depot Manager,, APSRTC,^{Bus Depot, Kamareddy, NizamabarlDist} 3 One CC to Sri V. Narasimha^{Goud, Advocate} [OPUC] 4 One CC^{to Sri ThoomSrinivas (SC for TSRTC)} [OPUCI 5 Two CD CoPies

¶50

TJ SB

HIGH COURT

DATED:0611112023

ORDER

! tA{E I A
(:
G Ti&
ttt .e
\b
+
a:
TD E

¶55

WP.No.23641 ol 2011

¶56

PARTLY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶57

[\ )-bD.

M. Bal Singh Died per Lr v. Apsrtc, Hyderabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Bal Singh Died per Lr v. Apsrtc, Hyderabad and Another

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

Devender Goud, S/o Narsaiah Goud Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Ishak Khan, Vs The State of Telangana

Merugu Ramesh and Anr. Vs Mohd. Hyder and 3 Ors.

M/S.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Ravula Laxmaiah and Anr.

Rapani Ramulamma Vs Shaik Mahaboob (Age Major)

Jadhav Sitharam Vs The Project officer, Itda Utnoor