Disposed

A.Sundaraiah S/o a.Lakshmaiah v. The Regional Manager

Telangana HC25 Apr 2023WP/30479/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition sought continuity of service and regularization for an APSRTC contract conductor whose tenure was interrupted by termination. The court disposed of the petition by directing respondents to extend continuity of service from termination to re-engagement dates for regularization purposes, excluding absent service periods, with no monetary benefits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to extend benefit of continuity of service from date of termination to re-engagement for regularization purposes, excluding absent period, without monetary benefits.

A.Sundaraiah S/o a.Lakshmaiah Vs The Regional Manager — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁷ I

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

wRlT PETTT|ON NO.30479 0F 2013

¶7

Between:

¶8

A.Sundaraiah S/o A.Lakshmaiah, Contract Conduclor, E.No.911937 APSRTC, Falaknuma Bus Depot, R/o. Backside Nims Hospital, Panjagutta, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad District.

¶12

The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Falaknuma Bus Depot, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Vice Chairman & Managing Drrector, APSRTC, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action o[ respondents in not ordering re-engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as a contract driver is bad in law, arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unreasonable as the termination of the^petitioner is against the principles of natural JUStice and against Corporation circulars and consequently direct the respondents to treat the re-engagement of the^petitioner by the respondents as re-engagement with continuity of service with all consequential benefits including regularization.

¶16

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 201^(WPMP. NO: 37836 OF 2013)

¶18

Petition un ler Section 151 CPC praying that in the c i.,' umstances stated in the aff idavit fiI d in support of the petition, the Hrglr Court nay be pleased to direct the respon lents to consider the petitioner for regular Tatic n of petitioner servrces by the t eating re-engagement of the petitioner b) r,)sp,)ndents as reengaqement of ervice with continuity of service all c:ns lquential benefits including regu lirri alion forthwith pending disposal of V/rit Pe:rt rn

¶19

Counsel for the F -.titioner: SRI VENKATESWERLLU KESATIIS ETIY Counsel for the F espondents: SRI THOOM SRINIVAS, S.C.^:C'R'I SRTC

¶20

The Court made¹ 1e following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶22

WRIT PBTTTION No.304 79 of 2013

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on 21.07.2006 at HCU Bus Depot olrhe respondent Corporation, on contract basis. He was terrninated from service by the Depot Manager, HCU Bus Depot, vidc order dated 30.06.2007 on the ground of unauthorized absence. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed appeal before the Divisional Manager, Charminar, but, thc said appeal was rejected vide order dated 13.05.2013, as against u,hich, rhe petitioner has filed revision petition before the respondcnt No.l, who in turn, has partly allowed the revisior, petition vide order dated 29.05.2013 re-engaging the petitioncr as a fiesh Conductor on contract basis.

¶25

2 Seeking to direct the respondents to awzrrd continuity of service for the purpose of rcgularization wilh all attendant benefits and consequential bcnellts. the petitioncr has ftlcd the present Writ Petition.

¶26

¶27

n.. ro17t.a20t3

¶28

Lcarr orl counsel for the pctitioner has st": cd that the issue rn rlrr present Writ pelition is squarcly cor crcd by, the ordcr ol rhr ; Court in Writ petition No.26l7l ot 2012 dated 24.08.2012 and has prayed to dispose ol' the, 1l^.cs(tnt Writ Petitiorr alsc in terms thereof.

¶29

[_car.nt d Standing Counsel appeanng or.r be talI of the responcie n t ( orporation does not dispute the sarn,: 5. It is rc be noted that vide order datecr 24.(tg 20r 2. rhis (.ourt has di posed of the above said Writ l)etiticrr No.2(r173 ol 20 l2 in rc nrs of the order dated29.02.2012 p,s5scd bv tliis CoLrrr in \' it petition No.27g6 of 2012 and b rrcrr .fhe u-rrnclusirc p< rtron of the said order dated 24.O?,.DI 2 irr \,rit Pctirion \o 2r I 73 of 2012 readsas follows:

¶30

'I rr te rr of the direction in the batch, the rvrit petiricn rs

¶31

.1t.p,r5 d of direding the respondents to extend the berrcllr inuitv of service to the petitioner liom thc datc rf lcat ltrl tion rill the date of his re_engagement except l,)r lrc Ier^rorl drrring rvhich he was absent. This continuirr, ,r. \Cl \ tC( .lrall. horver cr. be without monetary bc,rcfi. ,rr.. 'h,r^{Il h} c rurrted on11, lor the purpose of regularizrtiorr irr ;, ,ir c

¶32

AAR, J w.P.No.3O479^{of 20 l3}

¶33

¶34

Having^{regard to the above, this Writ Petition is also} disposed^{of directing the respondentsto extsnd the benefit of} continuity of^{service to the petitioner from the date of} terminationtillthedateofhisre-engagementexceptforthe period during^{which he was absent'This continuity oF service} shall, however,^{be without monetary benefitand shall be} counted^{only for the purpose ofregularization at a later date'}

¶35

Miscellaneous^{applications, if any pending' shall stand}

¶36

closed. There^{shall be no orderas to costs}

¶37

SDI.G.SIREESHA ASSISTANT^REGISTR ,TTRUE^COPYI/ SECTION^OFFTCER

¶38

To, 1. The Regional^{Manager' APSRTC'HyderabadRegion'Hyderabad District} 2.34 The^{DepotManager' APSRTC'Falaknuma BusDepot'Hyderabad'}

¶39

2.34 The One Vice^{CC to SRI Chairman & Managing VENKATeSWeaf-f-U KESAMSETTY' Director' APSRTC ' Hyderabad'Advocate [OPUC]}

¶40

4 5 One^{CC to SRI THOOM SRINIVAS'S C for TSRTC [OPUC]}

¶41

¶42

6-^{Two CD CoPies}

MPsB{

HIIGH COURT

DATI:D:1!510412023

, '11 .. i;1- ' -,1 ,l-r.
: J' .: f ,.'
/.
0 S JLN 2[ZJ
tlll;.
/
ORDER

¶47

WP.No.3t)4'79 of 2013

¶48

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOIJT COSTS

¶49

J_/^ _/ <) r
D( l,el) -<:->.
-<.,..,,., -*-
S.J ,,6,,

A.Sundaraiah S/o a.Lakshmaiah v. The Regional Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Sundaraiah S/o a.Lakshmaiah v. The Regional Manager

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

Ms. K.V.N.V. Bharathi Devi Vs Sri M. Jagadeeswar, lAS

Challa Ramadevi Vs Rama Rama Rao and another

M/S. Economic Transport Organisation Floet Owners Vs Thodupunuri Srinivas and Another

M/S Espi Industries and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad Vs the Chairman-Cum-Presiding Officer, Hyderabad and 1

Doddipati Saraiah Vs Vuppu Mallikarjun

Sale Ravi, Khammam District Vs the Commissioner , Dpet., F Ayush, and 3 Others