Partly allowed

V.Kista Reddy, Mahaboobnagar District. v. Apsrtc, by Vc and Md., Musheerabad, Hyderabad and 2 Others

Telangana HC18 Apr 2023WP/3923/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Musters modifications a High Court order reinstating a retired bus conductor to grant continuity of service for retirement benefits without back pay, rejecting a claim for fresh appointment as a fresh candidate.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be reposted in service with continuity of service for pension benefits; difference in pay to be paid separately within 12 weeks.

V.Kista Reddy, Mahaboobnagar District. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

1 i

¶2

[³¹⁶⁷ ]

¶3

Ar HYD E RABAD H rG H^{cou Rr} -ir'#:,1'61:,35 l: hlli:ffi

¶4

TUESDAY,^{THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE^{HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY}

¶7

WRlT PETITION^{NO:3923 OF 2007}

¶8

Between:

¶9

V.Kista ReddV,^{S/o Ramreddy,Conductor Fi,/o Hanumaiah Complex,Sadnagar,} Mani'ooounag-ar^District'

¶10

...pETtTtoNER

¶11

AND

¶12

APSRTC,^{Rep. by its VC & MD} '^{Musheerabad'Hyderabad'}

¶13

The Depot^{Manager, APSRTC, Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar Diskict'}

¶14

The Regional^{Manager,APSRTC, Mahaboobnagar, MahaboobnagarDistrict.}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstahces^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue^{a writ or order, more in the nature of writ of mandamus declare} the proceedings^{of the 3rd respondenthereinNo.PA/19(13)/2005-RM-(MB)dated} 27-7-OS as illegal^{andd isproportionateand set asidethe same in so far against} to the petitioner^{and further direct the 3rd respondentherein to grant all} consequential^{benefitsincluding protection of pay,continuityof service and all} attendant benefits^{with arrears and pass such other order or orders in the} interest of^{justiceas otherwise the petitionermay suffer irreparable loss and} hardship.

¶17

Counsel for the^{Petitioner: SRIP' VENKATESWARRAO}

¶18

CounselfortheRespondents:SRITHOOMSRINIVAS'S'C'FORTSRTC

¶19

The Court made^{the following: ORDER}

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.3923 of 2OO7

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Writ l)ctitiorr, unclcr Articlr: 2,2.6 o[ tlt:'^{(]onstitLr(iolr} ol-

¶24

lndia, is [1lcd s<rckrng tt-rc lollou ir.:g rciicf

¶25

'.... declar( Ihc proccedlngs (rl lho 3,, rcspondcrrt hcrL-in No;PA/ I9(13)/llOC)S RM (j.48) datcd )7^'i 05 rrs Lllcgal and disproportionatc :rnd sct asidc Llrr' samc ir-r so [ar'agarnsr ri) th( petitioncr and [urther drrcct thr: .]'i r-cspondcnt hcrcrn t() g1.tl)t all consequcnLial Lx:rrcfits rrTr:ludrr-Lg lrroLccrion of par,, contrDrrrrv oI scrvlce and all rtt.ndant l)enefits lvrth arr(ars and l)ass suclr,)thcr order or orders rn rhc rntcrcst ol lLrstrce as other \rrsc thc pctLoollcr' may suffcr irrepariLble loss and h rlshrp '

¶26

Heard thc learned counscl for rhe pctitioncr and Sri Thoom Srinivas, lcarnt:d Standing Counsr:i [or thc respondcnL Corpora tion

¶27

The petiLioncr, who was appointed in thc -ycar 1993, as a conductor was chargcd shcr:tcd on 24.O8.2OO4 wittr Lhrce charges on the ground that on 16.08.2004 hc r;ommitted some cash and ticket irregularitics rn,hile conducting thc bus on route Mahaboobnagar Goril.a. Thr: :ltl-hority having not bocn satisfied with the explanation submittcd b1, thc pctitioner on 30.08.20O4, an cnquiry was ordered against thc petit.ioncr. Thc tinquiry Officer, altcr conducting duc r:;tquiry, has submittcd the report on 06.12.2OO4 holding that tlrc cltargcs arc proved. LJascd on L

¶28

' '. :2"

¶29

¶30

the said enquiry rcport and aftcr issuing thc show cause noticc dated 23.12.2OO4, t-he petitione r was rcmovcd lrom scrvicc vide proceedings datcd 04.O L2OO5.^'l'he appeal hled by the petitioner was clismissed by the Appellatc Authority vide proceedings dated 19.O2.2005. I lorn,cver, thc Rcvie'*r filed by the petitioner was partly allou,ed by thc l?eviervrng Authorit5z vide proceedings <laLed 27.O7.20O5, thc ordcr of removal was set aside and the pctitioner wzrs dircctcd Lo be reinstated into service subject to mcdical fitness, but, as a measure of punishment the pctitioner's pay (,as directed to be lixcd in the minimum timescale. Aggricvcd by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶31

4l lrarned counsel for the petitioncr has stated that even though the authority conccrned has directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service, but the petitioner was placed in the minimum timescale which literally amounted to a fresh appointment, which is impe rmissible under the law. Reliance is placed on the order dated 23.11.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No.29O26 of 2OlO to buttress his contention. Learned counsel has stated that the petitioner has already retired from scrvice and therclore the authorities may be directed to rcinstatc thc pctitioner into service without

¶32

¶33

back r,v:rgcs but r,vith continuilv of scrvrcc lor thc lturpose of extcnding gralrritv and othcr rctircmcnt bcncfits

¶34

Pcr conl,ra. thc lcarnr.rl Standing Counscl appcanng on behalf o[ thc rcspondcnt Cor-poration has vehcmenlly o1;poscd thc vcry marr-rtzrinabilit),ol lhc Wri( I)etition and has starcd that the Revicwing Authorily dulv taking a lenicnt vicw.has sct asidt: the ordcr of removal and plzrr:ed the pctitioner undr:r minimum timc sr:ale. [-carned Standing Counscl has furthr:r conlcndcd that placing the pel.itioner in thc minimum timcscalc docs not amount to appoiltment of 1.hc petitioner afresh and t.hcreforc prayed this LIon'ble Court to dismiss the Writ Pctitron.

¶35

I)cruscd the maLcrial on record

¶36

As seen from thc rccorcl, lhe chargcs levcled against thc pctitioncr arc thal hc has indulged in taking a lare amount o[ Rs.4/ from a passengcr ar)d r)oL issuing thc ticket. Flvcn though the Disciplinary Authorrty has imposed the punishmcnt of removal from servicc and thc same was confirmed by lhe Appellatc Aul,horiry, the Revicwing Authority dul1. t.aking into consideration the servicc rer:ord of thc pclitioner ar.rd also the nature <;[ chargcs levelcd agair-rst him, has dcemed it ht to set aside the order ol thr: l)isciplinary AuthoriLy and directed \

reinstatemcnt of the petitioner into service, hor.r'evcr, asa measure of punishment thc pctitioncr ['a s placed in thc mrnimum timc scalc

¶41

A perusal of the ordcr dated 23. I I.20 lO in W.1,. No.29026 of 20 10, on which much rcliance has bccn placr:d by the learned counsel for the pctitioner, reveals that whilc passing the said order, thc learned Judge has placcd reliancc on K.C. Naragana u. M@nqging Director, APSR"C, Hgderabadl ,"r,hercin it is held that the direction as to appointment as licsh conductor is opposed to the regulations framed by the Corporation. Having regard to the same, placing of the petitioner in the minimum time scale is nothing but reinstating the petitioner as a frcsh candidate, which is against thc Regulations of the Corporation.

¶42

Admittedly, in the case on hand, the petitioner was appointed in the year 1993, removed in the year 2OO5 by which time he has received almost 10- I 1 increments. Morcover, as seen from the record, the passengcr who did not possess the ticket was imposed a fine of Rs.20,0OO/ - by the Corporation. Taking into considcration the fact that the petitioner is having an unblemished record and that evcn subscqucnt to the

¶43

'^{2007(51 ALD 416}

¶44

¶45

rclrlstatemcnl lrr_, has nc)t in.lulqcd in an,y misconduct, (his Court is of tlte opinron rlrar the impugne d ordcr clirecting reinst.ttcmcnt ol'Lhc pctiLi,)nr-r :rnd placing him in the minimum limc scalc is roo harsh anrl thc samc is mod ificd lo lhc cxtcrlt that thc pcl_itioner shall frt notiolrally reinstatcd into seruice u it hout back u.agcs but rvit It continuity of service lor thc purpose ol cxtr:nding the r.liremcnt benerrts. 'l'hc difrercnc. ,f amount pa.yablc Lo thc pctrli()ncr, in terms of this ordcr, shall bc calculated ancl paid lo lhc pctitioner, as cxpeditiously as possible, prcfe;-ablv, within ii pcriod of twelve weeks from [l.re date of recct pt 0l a copy of th is order.

¶46

1O) Accordingly, the Wrir pcrLtion is allowed to the extcnt indicatcd above.

¶47

MiscclLanr:ous pctitions pending, if any, shall stand closcd. No ordcr:rs Lo costs.

¶48

That Rure Nisi has been.absorute as above. witness the Hon,bre the chief Justice sRr UJJAL BHUyAr, o" itri. r-r-"-.a-rv,'it" Eighteenth Day of Aprir, Two Thousand and Twenty fliree.^{-- -' qvvvs,'I rr}

¶49

SD/- MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶50

To,

¶51

SECTI OFFICER

¶52

HyderabadThe Vice Chairman & IVanaging Director ApSRTC, Musheerabad,

¶53

The.Depot Manager, ApSRTC, Mahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar District.

¶54

The Regional Manager, APSRTC, t\4ahaboobnagar, Mahaboobnagar Diskict

¶55

One CC to SRI p. VENKATESWAR RAO, Advocate tOpUCl 5. One CC to SRt THOOM SR|NIVAS, S.C. for TSRTC tOpUCl

¶56

Two CD Copies

MP -Ls

I{IGH COURT

DATED:1810412023

:i lil
-'0.r.
a i-)
I
i,; [g JU'i't 2023
\i:,
,./
t'.
t-'': :: ' .> '' :'.'
j-::::j.
,,..j1 .i _
ORDER

¶61

WP.No.3923 ot 2007

¶62

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶63

¶64

%
d
C2

V.Kista Reddy, Mahaboobnagar District. v. Apsrtc, by Vc and Md., Musheerabad, Hyderabad and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Kista Reddy, Mahaboobnagar District. v. Apsrtc, by Vc and Md., Musheerabad, Hyderabad and 2 Others

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

P.Srinivas, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Govindu Prameela Vs M.Suguna

M.Bal Raj, Hanumakonda,Jangaon,Warangal District Vs Apsrtc., v.C.and M.D., Musheerabad,Hyderabad and 2 Others

The Karimnagar Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd., Vs v.Srinivas Reddy

V.Krishna Mohan. Hyderabad Vs the Cheif Executive Officer., Vasavi Coop.Urban Bank Ltd.Hyd

Smt. Nafasath Ameena, W/o. Syed Siraj Hyder, Vs The Government of A.P.