THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.3219 OF 2016
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularising the petitioner services with effect from 01.03.1996 on par with his similarly placed colleagues and in not fixing the pay by adding notional increments during the removal period and in not revising his pay scales from time to time as illegal, unjust and discriminatory and consequently to direct the respondents to regularise the petitioner's services with effect from 01.03.1996 on par with his colleagues instead of from 01.01.2005 and to fix his pay duly adding the notional increments for the out of service period including the difference of back wages along with other consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the petitioner joined the services of the respondent Corporation as a Conductor on 10.11.1995 after undergoing due process of selection. While he was working as a Conductor in Kukatpally Depot, he was kept W.P.No.3219 of 2016 2 under put up duty from 05.10.1995 and thereafter he was removed from service vide order dt.09.04.1996 on the ground of ticket irregularities. Thereafter, the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner were dismissed and the petitioner raised I.D.No.146 of 1999 (old ID No.105 of 1997) before the Labour Court, Hyderabad. Vide orders dt.18.10.2001, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service afresh without back wages and without continuity of service and in accordance therewith, the petitioner was reinstated into service in August, 2002 and has been working continuously since then. Aggrieved by the award in respect of denial of other service benefits, the petitioner filed W.P.No.16095 of 2002 before this Court and vide orders dt.26.09.2013, the High Court partly allowed the Writ Petition holding that the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement together with continuity of service and attendant benefits without back wages. The said order has become final as no appeal was filed against the same.
3. However, the said order was not implemented. The petitioner made a representation dt.28.10.2013 seeking regularisation of his services with effect from 01.08.1999 on par with his colleagues namely A. Narender and Shankar Naik, E.No.206635 whose services were W.P.No.3219 of 2016 3 regularised with effect from 01.03.1996. Since the respondents failed to take any action on the representation of the petitioner, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. Narasimha Goud, submits that when the High Court has modified the order of punishment and has granted continuity of service and attendant benefits, the entire period from removal from service to reinstatement has to be treated as regularised and the petitioner has to be put back in the position in which he was before termination of his services. He submits that since the order of the Labour Court was still in force and was not set aside, the petitioner could not have asked for regularisation of his services and therefore he could not challenge the regularisation order dt.01.01.2005. He submits that in similar circumstances, this Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.15735 of 2010 has directed the respondent Corporation to put the petitioner back in the position as on the date of termination and regularise the services of the petitioner therein with effect from the date from which the colleagues of the petitioner therein have been regularised. He sought similar direction from this Court.
W.P.No.3219 of 2016 4
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, Sri N. Praveen Reddy, submits that in the earlier Writ Petition, the petitioner had only challenged the award modifying the punishment of termination of services into reinstatement without back wages and continuity of service and there was no prayer for regularisation of his services from the date of regularisation of his colleagues. He submits that this Writ Petition has been filed after a delay of nearly 10 years of passing of the regularisation order in the case of the petitioner, i.e., on 04.06.2005 while the regularisation order of his colleagues is dated 19.04.1996 and therefore the prayer in this Writ Petition cannot be entertained and should be dismissed at the admission stage itself. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Regional Manager, APSRTC Vs. N. Satyanarayana and others1 for the proposition that where a Writ Petition for regularisation of services is filed after a decade and the employee failed to give any explanation for the delay, the Writ Petition ought to have been dismissed. 1 (2008) 1 SCC 210 W.P.No.3219 of 2016 5
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, it is noticed that the petitioner was initially appointed on 10.11.1995 and has been working as a Conductor in the respondent organization without any break except for the period from the date of removal, i.e., 09.04.1996 to the date of reinstatement, i.e., in August, 2002. The petitioner had been reinstated into service with continuity of service and attendant benefits. Therefore, the petitioner is not to be treated as removed from service and his services have also to be treated as continuing from the date of his appointment, i.e., 10.11.1995. When the High Court has granted attendant benefits, it means that the petitioner is also eligible for all the benefits as has been given to the similarly placed employees. The petitioner is claiming regularisation of his services with effect from 01.03.1996 on par with his colleagues namely, A.Narender, E.No.206706 and Shankar Naik, E.No.206635 and questioning the action of the respondents in not fixing the pay by adding the notional increments during the removal period and in not applying the respective revised pay scales. When the petitioner is to be treated as not being terminated from service and has been granted attendant benefits, then regularisation of his services ought to have been done with effect from W.P.No.3219 of 2016 6 the date on which the services of his colleagues/similarly placed employees have been regularised and notional increments for the period from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement also ought to have been granted. The only reason being given by the respondents for not doing so is that the petitioner never prayed for regularisation of his services in the earlier Writ Petition. However, regularisation of services is the right of an employee, provided he fulfils the conditions for such regularisation. The petitioner would challenge the order only when his right is denied to him and his regularisation of services has been done with effect from 01.01.2005 vide orders dt.04.06.2005. The petitioner was granted continuity of service by the order of this Court in W.P.No.16095 of 2002 dt.26.09.2013 and immediately thereafter, he made a representation dt.28.10.2013 and since his request was not considered, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition in 2016 for the monetary benefits as well as regularisation. Therefore, the decision relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation in the case of Regional Manager, APSRTC Vs. N. Satyanarayana and others (1 supra) is not applicable to the present case. In the said case, the employees therein had sought regularisation W.P.No.3219 of 2016 7 from the date of initial appointment after a lapse of nearly 10 years of regularisation. In the present case on hand, the petitioner made a representation to the 4th respondent on 28.10.2013 for implementation of the order dt.26.09.2013 in W.P.No.16095 of 2002 filed by him, but the respondents did not do so.
7. In view thereof, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should be treated as on duty from the date of his appointment and he is eligible for the respective pay revisions and also for regularisation on par with his colleagues and for grant of notional increments during the period from the date of removal from service to the date of reinstatement.
8. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Dt. 06.06.2022 Svv