S.Harikrishna, Ibrahimpatnam, ... vs Ts.S.R.T.C.,Hyderabad, 3 Otrs.
2022 Latest Caselaw 2338 Tel

      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

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

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

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.

(2008) 1 SCC 210 W.P.No.3219 of 2016

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

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

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