Dismissed

N. Krishna, v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC29 Aug 2023WP/34336/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court of Telangana examined the petitioner's claim for appointment as a cleaner under a circular benefiting children of deceased or retired employees. The court held that prior orders and the Supreme Court's dismissal of similar claims bind the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without costs and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

N. Krishna, Vs Telangana State Road… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE^{TWENTY NINTH DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEJ. SREENIVAS RAO}

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 34336^{OF 2016}

¶8

Between:-t<ritnna, --'--^- il. s/o. Narasimha, aged^{46 years, CasteS C', R/o} H.No.1-10-77, Bodagutta, Kazipel,^{WarangalDstrict.}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Telanoana State Road Transport^{Corporation, Represented by its Managing} Direct6r, Bus Bhavan,^{[Vlusheerabad,HYDERABAD- 5O0020'}

¶12

ifr" nLgi""it^{tManager,T.S.R.T.C., WarangalRegion,WarangalDistrict,} Warangal.

¶13

2 i'n"Diiisonut lvlanager,^{T.S.R.T.C., Warangal Division, WarangalDistrict,} Warangal.

¶14

irre Oe"pot Manaser,^{T.S. R.T. C., Itlahabubabad, Warangal} .?'itI'S!O* o, *r,

¶15

Petition under Article²²⁶ of^{the constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filedtherewith, the High court may be} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction^{more particularlyonein the nature of} writ of lvlandamus declaring^{the ProceedingNo. LC/876(1} )/2005-R.^{t\il- wL, dated-} 20.06.2016,^passed by^{the Respondent No.2,as illegal'arbilrary,and against} principles of Natural Justice, and also^{declare the action of Respondentsin not} appointing the^{petitioner in the post of cleaneror any other equivalent post,is} itiegal, arbitrary and against^{principles of Natural Justice, and consequently} dirJct the Reipondenti to^{appoint the petitioner as cleaner or anyother} equivalent^post.

¶16

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016 WPMP.^{NO: 42347 OF 2016)}

¶17

Petition under Section^'1 51 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the HighCourt maybe pleasedto} direct the Respondents to consider^{forthwiththe case of} lhe^{petitioner for} appointment as cleaner or any other^{equivalent post in the Respondent} Corporation, pending disposal of the above^{writ petition.}

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. GlRl^KRISHNA

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI GADDAM^{SRINIVAS, SC FOR TSRTC} The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO}

¶22

WRIT PETITION N^{o.34336 of 2OL6}

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This Writ Petition^{is filedseekingthe following prayer:-}

¶25

"...to issue^{a Writ Order or d-irection more particularlgone in} the nature of^Wit -of^{Mandomus declaing the Proceeding No'} LC/ 876(1)/ 20O5-R.M:^{WL, d.ated:2O'06'2016, passed bg the} Res,cond.ent No.2,^{as ittegat, arbitrary, and ogainst pinciples} of A aturat Justice,^{and- olso declare the oction of Resysondents} in n.ot appointing^{the petitionerin the post of Cleaner or ang} other equiualent^{post, isiltegat, arbitraryandagainst} pnnciptes of Naturat^{Justice, and consequentlgdlrectthe} Respond.ents to^{appoint the petitioner os cleoneror o'ngother}

¶26

equiualent^post."

¶27

I Ieard Sri^P. Giri^{Krishna, learnedcounselfor the} petitioner and Sri^{GaddamSrinivas, learned Standing Counsel} appearing on^{behalf of the respondent Corporation'}

¶28

..earned counsel for^{the petitioner submits that} father of thr: petitioner,^{namely N.Narsimha, was a].I employeeof} the respond.ent Corporation^{and he retired from service on} attaining thLe age of superannuation^{on 37.l2.199B During his} service, the respondent Corporation^{had issuedcir<:ular dated} 05.10.1987, vide Circular^{No. PD-112} 1L987,^wherebyithas provided 3(l7o vaca4cies^reserved for cleaners/khalasis^{to the} chiidren oj lbe^deceased /^{retired in service employees, who have}

¶29

¶30

¶31

completed 25 years of services. pursuant to the said circular, petitioner's father has made a representation seeking appointment of the petitioner to the post of cleaner and the sarne was rejected on the ground that his brother was already in service in the respondent corporation and rules of reservation is not applicable to second son of retired employee. euestioning the same, petitioner's father filed W.p.No.11064 of 1992 and this Court, granted interim direction on 24 .O3.1994, directing the respondent Corporation to consider the appointment of the petitioner afresh on merits and pass appropriate orders within six weeks and further held that the respondent Corporation cannot decline to appoint the petitioner on the ground that his another son was already in employmer-rt of the respondent Corporation.

¶32

3.1 He further submits that when the respondents failed to implement the said order, the petitioner,s father has filed C.C.No.794 of 1994 before this Court. During the pendency of the said case, the respondent Corporation filed W.A.No.7O of L994, aggrieved by the order dated 24.O3.1994, however issued appointment order.. appointing the petitioner to the post of

¶33

¶34

¶35

cleaner in respondent No.4-Depot, subject to the^{result of the} Writ Appeal and the Division Bench of this Court^{a-llowed the} said Writ Alrpeal on 12.03.1997, and set aside the orders^{of the} Iearned Single Judge dated 24.03.1994. Aggrieved by the^said order, the petitioner's father had filed SLP No.23 of 1997 before the Hon'bl: Apex Court and the sarne was dismissed^on 08.O4.1997. Thereafter, the respondent Corporation removed the petitioner from services through order dated 03.05.1997. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised a dispute vide I.D.No. 144 of 2001 on the file of Industrial Tribunal -cumLabour Court, Warangal by invoking the provisions under Section 2-A(2\ of the Industrial Act, 1947 (for short the Act'.) and the Labour Court without properly considering the provisions rf Section 25(f) of the Act, dismissed the I.D.No.144 of 2001 on 08.09.2003 and passed the impugned awzrd.

¶36

3 .2. He vehemently contended that the brother of the petitioner was appointed in the respondent Corporation prior to the issuan<:e of the circular dated 05.1O.1987 and the petitioner is entitled for the benelit of the above said circula:: and he is having requisite qualification i.e., 7th class to the post of the

¶37

it -.r. rf-.j i

¶38

¶39

cleaner. Hence, the impugned rejection order passed by the respondent Corporation dated 20.06.2016, on the alleged ground that the petitioner is not having requisite qualification is not tenabie under law. He further submits that the other ground raised by the respondent Corporation that as on the date of rejection, there is no scherne providing employment to the retired employees/in-service employees is also not tenable on the sole ground that petitioner is claiming appointment to the post of cleaner as per the schen-re framed by the respondent corporation through circular dated 05.10.1987 and the same is in existence as on the date of appointment of the^petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that the claim raised by the^{petitionerrvas} already considered by Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.70 of 1995 arrd the sarne was rejected by it order dated 12.03.1997, and the sarne was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in^SLP No.23 of 1997 and the said orders are binding upon the^parties and the petitioner is not entitled to reiterate the very saine grounds in this Writ Petition. Pursuant to the orders in W.P.No.23807 of 2OO4, dated 19.02.20 16, petitioner submitted

¶40

¶41

representatioll dated^{27 .02.2016 arrd the salne was considered} and rightly rtjected^{by the respondentcorporation and there is} no illegality and irregularity^{in the impugned orderdated} 20.06.2016^{passedby the respondent No.2.}

¶42

Having considered the^{rival submissions made by the} respective parties and after^{perusal of the materialavailable on} record, it clearly^reveals that^{the respondent Corporationhad} issued appointment order on^{25.01.1995 appointing the} petitioner to the post of mechanic^{in the respondentNo.4-Depot,} pursuant to the orders of this Court^{in W'P.No. 11064 of 199t2,} dated 24.03.1994,^{subject to outcome of the resultof W'A'No'7O} of 1995 filed by the^{respondentcorporation.It further appears} from the records that the^{Division Bench of this Court allowed} the above said Writ^{Appeal on 12.03.1997,questioning the} same, the petitioner filed^{SLP No.23of 1997 beforettre Honble} Supreme Court and the^{same was dismissed by its order dated} o8.o4.1997.

¶43

It is already stated supra^{that the petitioner is not entitled} to raise the very same^{groundsin this Writ Petition, as the} orders.daterl 12.03.1997^{passedby the Division Bench of this}

¶44

¶45

¶46

Court in W.A.No.70 of 1995 and orders of the Hon,ble Apex Court in SLp No.23 of 1997 have become final ald binding upon the petitioner. Hence the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 20.06.2016 is in accordance with law. Therefore the respondent Corporation removed the petitioner from service on 31.O5. 1997. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised a dispute invoking the provisions of Sec.2 _A(2) of the Act vide LD.No. 144 of 2OO1 on the file of the Industria.l Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Warangal arrd the sarne was dismissed by its Ar.vard dated 0g.09.2003. euestioning the same, the petitioner filed W.p.No .23gOZ cf 2OO4 before this Court and the same was disposed with a direction permitting the petitioner to submit representation afresh to the respondent Corporation and the sarne may be considered in accordance with the rules ald regulations of the corporation by its order dated 79.02.2016. It also reveals from the record that the respondent No.2 after considering the representation of the petitioner dated 22.02.201,6 passed impugned order on 20.06.2076 rejecting the claim of the petitioner by giving cogent reasons and the petitioner is not entitled any relief much less

'5,

the relief sought in this Writ Petition and this Court clo not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order errd if^any orders are passed, it amounts to modifying the orders of the Division Bench as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.9810 of 1997 dated 08.04.1997 and the same is not permissible under law

¶52

7 . For th,: foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed without costs.

¶53

MiscelLaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶54

sD/- MOHD.^{SANAULLAHA\SA-B!} ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //rRUE coPY/, .!#,oN oFFtcER

¶55

To, 1 . one CC to SRI P. GlRl KRISHNA, Advocte- [-O!^UpJ 2 . il; Ed iI^{Siii cnooArvr SCtuiVAs'sc FoR rsRrc toPUCl} 2. Two CD CoPies BN GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:2910812023

ORDER

WP.No.34336^{of 2016}

¶61

? s'tATE o
q
i r'l sIT6
N )r.,.', t \ '?. -
''li;;;.-tr----

¶62

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS

N. Krishna, v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Krishna, v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Sudarshanam, Vs The Telangana State Northern Power Distribution Company

Dr. G. Machender Vs The State of Telangana.

Sri T.S.A Prasad, Vs The State of Telangana

Ch a Kumar Vs Executive Engineer and 2 Others

M.Shailaja, Vs The District Educational Officer

B. Mallaiah, Vs The T.S.R.T.C.