Telangaria State Road Transport Corporation Vs T. Ramulu

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 pleased to condone the delay of 447 days in filing the present Appeal.

¶22

lA NO: 3 OF 2:025

¶23

Petitiorr under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit fied in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant} stay of operation of Orders in W^P. No.^{45675of 2016 dated26.02.2024-}

¶24

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI R. ANURAG,^{S.C.FOR TSRTC}

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI^{V. NARASIMHA GOUD}

¶26

The Court merde the following:^JUDGMENT

¶27

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶28

ON'BLB THE KUMAR

¶29

AND

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRI CE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

¶31

I.A.No.1 of 2025 in/and

WRIT No.6l3 of 2025

DATED: 12.02.2026

Between:

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad & 3 others

Appellants

AND

T.Ramulu

Respondent

JUDGMENT

Heard Mr. R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) appearing for the appellants and Mr. V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner

¶42

The appeal suffers from a delay of 447 days, for condonation of which

¶43

I.A.No. L of 2025 has been filed. The appellants seek to assail the direction of the learned writ Court to count the period during which the writ petitioner was out of service upon removal in a departmental proceeding till his reinstatement

¶44

2

¶45

by the revisLonal authority as a fresh Driver on 03.03.2010^{for the purposeof} continuity in service for all purposes and for difference of salary^{for that period.} The writ petitioner was removed from service on 09.1 1.2009 and^{after the order} dated 15.02.2010 passed by the revisional authority,^{he was reinstatedon} 03.03.2010 i.e., after a^gap of four months. The writ^{petitioner acceptedthe} reinstatement with the terms and conditions indicated therein but approached^the writ Court zrfter six years seeking continuity in service. The appellants^have assailed the impugned order on a number of^grounds. That continuity^{of service} in case of ri:instatement as a fresh Driver for the period he was out of service would set a wrong precedent in the organisation. Writ petitioner had taken^the plea that the revisional authority could not have reinstated him as a fresh Driver in course of a proceeding where his removal in a departmental proceeding^was under challerge.

¶46

Learn,:d Standing Counsel for the appellants submits that the delay is not intentional. [t has occasioned on account of repeated change in the counsel for the Corporation. Moreover, due to change of the counsel, the^pleadings of W.P.No.45675 of 2016 were mixed with other bundles at the office of the leamed Standing Counsel. After receipt of the certified copy, the records pertaining to the case was obtained. The appeal was drafted upon instructions from the Corporation and thereafter filed. Therefore, delay may be condoned.

¶47

3

¶48

During course of submissions, learned counsel for the parties have also addressed the Court on the merits of the challenge to the impugned order.

¶49

On the one hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellants have contended that reinstatement as a fresh Driver could not entail continuity in service and if so granted would be not only contrary to the Rules but set a wrong precedent. Moreover, the writ petitioner cannot get the salary for the difference period as directed by the learned writ Court since he was out of service. The services of the employees of the Corporation are not pensionable.

¶50

On behalf of the writ petitioner, though objection to the delay condonation has been made, but learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that writ petitioner would be satisfied if the benefit of continuity in service is confined only for the purposes of pay fixation upon his appointment as a fresh Driver and fufure increments to which he may be entitled.

¶51

On being asked, the leamed Standing Counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned order may be modified as may be considered just and proper limiting the relief to continuity of service only for the purpose of pay fixation and future increments.

¶52

Having regard to the facts and circumstances noted above and the legal position that the writ petitioner had been reinstated as a fresh Driver on acceptance of the terms and conditions indicated in his joining letter and that the

¶53

I ta

¶54

4

¶55

period for which he was out of service^{was approximatelyfour monthsonly,} given the consensus arrived at^{betweenthe parties, we are of the view that the} delay in prel'erring this^{appeal can be condonedsubject to payment of costs of} Rs.5,000/- (ltupees Five^{Thousandonly) to the Telangana StateLegal Services} Authority within two weeks.^{The impugned order is modifiedto the extentthat} the benefit o[continuity^{of service to the writ petitioner would be limited for the} purposes of pay fixation upon his^{re-joiningand for future increments.} Admissible beneFrts due^{to the writ petitioner consequent upon the order passed} in the appeal be computed and^{paid within a reasonable time, preferably four} months from the date of^{receipt of copy of the order.}