Nvvnk Durga Vara Prasad, W.G.Dist vs Apsrtc, Hyd 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 4420 AP

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: AMARAVATI

             MAIN CASE No: W.P.No.16914 of 2013
                      PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.                                                                        OFFICE
      DATE         ORDER
No                                                                         NOTE.
                   RNT,J
                        Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2.    22.07.2022
                         No representation for the respondents 1 to 3.

The petitioner has challenged the proceedings dated 06.06.2013 by which the petitioner, driver in A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C) was assigned dual duty of driver and conductor on the ground that the petitioner was selected and appointed as driver only as per his qualification.

Vide interim order dated 14.06.2013, taking into consideration the judgment dated 30.01.2012 passed in W.P.No.29625 of 2011, in which also the same issue was involved, direction was given not to insist the drivers to perform the dual job of driver and conductor with TIMS services. Pursuant to the interim order the petitioner is continued as driver and the dual service has not been assigned to him by the A.P.S.R.T.C.

As per the counter affidavit stand has been taken that as per amended Rule 72 of M.V. Rules the dual duty could be assigned the drivers also.

A perusal of the judgment dated 30.01.2012, passed by this Court inW.P.No.29625 of 2011 shows that amended rule 72 of M.V. Rules, it was held as under:

"Ofcourse Sri Subbarao, learned counsel is right in saying that incases where all the tickets have been booked in advance in non-stop vehicles i.e., where there is no need to pick up the passengers in between stages, then in the above circumstances, the corporation appears to be justified in not allotting conductors in such busses. Therefore, except in the cases of non stop buses and where all the tickets have been issued in advance booking and where there is no necessity to pick up any passenger till the bus reaches last destination, the Corporation is not justified in directing the drivers to perform the duties of conductors. It is clear that the said procedure is in violation of the above referred

provision of the MV Act and Rules. Therefore, the respondents are directed not to insist the petitioners and other drivers to perform the dual job of drivers and conductors with TIMS services."

From the afore said judgment, it is evident that except in the cases of non stop buses, and where all the tickets have been issued in advance booking, and where there is no necessity to pick up any passenger till the bus reaches last destination, the A.P.S.R.T.C. is not justified in directing the drivers to perform the dual duties of conductors and drivers. Direction was given that the A.P.S.R.T.C shall not insist the drivers to perform the dual job of driver and conductors with TIM services.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ appeal filed against the judgment dated 30.01.2012 was dismissed.

However, the same is not on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall produce of the judgment of writ appeal as submitted by him.

Post on 26.07.2022.

________ RNT,J Gk