Allowed

P. Balram v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC24 Aug 2023WP/55/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's petition. It directed the respondents to allow the petitioner one more opportunity to furnish the security deposit within four weeks. Upon successful deposit, the petitioner may be appointed as a contract conductor subject to eligibility criteria and physical and medical tests.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 18.06.2018 set aside; petitioner directed to pay security deposit within four weeks; respondents to consider appointment subject to criteria and tests.

P. Balram Vs The Telangana State Road… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

132571

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO 55 0F 2020

¶8

Between

¶9

P..Balram, s/o. fvluniya, Aged about 40 years, contract conductor(c.9g5906), Telangana State Road rransport corporation, tr4iyapur-r Bus Depoi, iryderabad, Telangana State.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, I\rlusheerabad, Hyderabad, Telangana Siate.

¶13

2 The Executive Director (GHZ and lT), Telangana State RoaJ Transport Corporation, JBS, Picket, Secunderabad, Telangina State.

¶14

3 The Regional Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Secunderabad Region, JBS, Picket, Secunderabad, Telangana State.

¶15

4 The Divisional [Vlanager, Terangana state Road rransport corporation, Sanathnagar Division, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶16

1. The Depot Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Jeedimetla Bus Depot, Hyderabad, Telangana Slate.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Arlicre 226 of the constitution of rndia 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 one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents herein in not allowing the petitioner in to duty is bad, arbitrary and illegal and consequenfly direct the respondents to allow the petitioner in to duty us pei proc. dt. 12-oi-2o13 of the 4th respondent herein by setting aside the consequential proc. dt. 1 8-06-2018 of the 2nd respondent herein.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P. VENKATESWAR RAO

¶20

Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI THOOM SRINIVAS, SC FOR TSRTC

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

¶23

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.55 of 2O2O

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

{

¶27

Petitioner is aggrieved of the action of respondents in not allowing him into duty by rejecting his Mercy Petition vide orders, dated 18.06.2018

¶28

I have heard the submissions of Sri P.Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC appearing for the Respondents and perused the record

¶29

Case ol the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Contract Conductor in the month of February, 2011. When he could not attend for duties for the period from 29.4.2011 to 26.05.2011 due to his ill-health, he was terminated from service vide order, dated 27.08.2012. On his appeal before the 4th respondent, the order, dated 12.02.2013 is passed reinstating the petitioner as Contract Conductor and he was allotted to leedimetla Depot vide office order, dated 14.02.2013. Upon his reporting at leedimetla Depot, he was asked to get'no due certiFicate' from the earlier depot (Myp-I) and was further instructed to pay fresh security deposit. He could not pay the security deposit due to non-availability of funds and also due to his ill-health. ThgreFore he made several representations to the t'

¶30

{

¶31

\qre \ .,-r{:!{ "{-'I

¶32

2 JS, w.P.No.s5 of^2A2O

¶33

respondents to allow him to^join duty ancl f inally, the Regional Manager rejected his case vide office order, dated 30.04.2018. The subsequent Mercy Petiticn iiled by the^petitlon-'r uras also rejected by the 2nd respondent by impugned order, daterj 18.06.2018. Hence, this^r,vrit petition.

¶34

4, When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the^learned counsel for the petitioner that in similar^{matters in W.P.Nos.31126of} 2072 and W.P.No.27104 of 20L7, this Court directed^{the respondents} to appoint the^petitioners therein as^{Contra.-t Conductorsafresh} subject to^physical and medical tests^{and sublectto fulfilling the} eligibility criteria for such appointment.

¶35

Learned Standing Counsel for^{TSRTC on the other hand} submits that the^{petitioner has failedto report to duty at Jeedimetla} Depot for more than five^years and^{thereafter filed the Mercy Petition} which was rightly rejected by the^{RegionalManager. Accordingly he} prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶36

Having considered the rival^{submissions of the parties, and in} view of the earlier orders^{of this Courtin W.P.No.31126 of 2012 and} W.P.No.27104 of 2077, this Court^{is of the considered view that the} petitioner can be given one more opportunity^{for making the security}

¶37

15, l W.P.No.55 of 2O2O

¶38

¶39

! I Ill

¶40

deposit in compliance of the orders of the appellate authority, dated 72.02.20t3.

¶41

{

¶42

7, Accordinglv, this writ petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned order, dated 18.06.2018 and directing the petitioner to furnish the security deposit within a period of fou r (04) weeks fi-om the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as a Contract Conductor aFresh, subject to his fulfilling the eligibilitv criteria for such appointment and also subject to the physical and medical tests as per rules. No costs.

¶43

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶44

SD/. V.KAVITHA

¶45

\ \

¶46

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// u

¶47

SECTION OFFICER

¶48

To,

¶49

The lVanaging Director, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Bus Bhavan, [/usheerabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State_

¶50

The Executrve Director (GHZ and lT), Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, JBS, Picket, Secunderabad, Telangana State_

¶51

The Regional Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Secunderabad Region, JBS, Picket, Secunderabad, Telangana State.

¶52

The Divisional Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Sanathnagar Division, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, Telangana State-

¶53

The Depot Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Jeedimetla Bus Depot, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶54

One CC to SRI P VENKATESWAR RAO, Advocate.[OPUC]

¶55

One CC to SRI THOOI/ SRINIVAS, SC FOR TSRTC.[OPUC]

¶56

Two CD Copies

¶57

SB _ GJ '*r'-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2410812023

{

ORDER

.,,:,t: .: i. r . ..1 i:1-.
) i.,,, . -.<br>'(
!
I tl I lii 2fi8

¶63

WP.No.SS of 2020

¶64

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶65

¶66

P. Balram v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Balram v. The 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravutla Sravanthi Vs The State of Telangana

Ch.Vijaya Bhaskar Vs The Regional Joint Director

Ch. Venkata Sukumari Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

M D Abdul Ali Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

G. Preethi Vs The State of Telangana

K.Narasimha Vs Sandeep Kumar Sultania, Ias.