B. Ramulu vs Managing Director T.S.R.T.C And 2 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2347 Tel

      THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI


                 WRIT PETITION NO.27661 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's services with effect from 01.08.1999 on par with his

similarly placed colleagues and in not fixing the pay by adding notional

increments from 01.09.1999 to 22.03.2003 and in not extending other

benefits, as illegal, unjust and discriminatory and consequently to direct

the respondents to regularise the petitioner's services with effect from

01.09.1999 instead of from 01.07.2009 on par with his colleagues and

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 25.10.1997 after undergoing due process of selection. In

the year 1998, when the petitioner was working as a Conductor in W.P.No.27661 of 2016

Vikarabad bus depot, he was removed from service on 11.05.1998 on

the ground of cash and ticket irregularities. Thereafter, the appeal and

revision filed by the petitioner were dismissed and the petitioner raised

I.D.No.85 of 2001 before the Labour Court-I, Hyderabad. Vide orders

dt.04.10.2002, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner

into service without back wages and without continuity of service and in

accordance therewith, the petitioner reported for duty on 26.02.2003 and

was taken on duty on 26.02.2003 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.27668 of 2005 before this Court

and vide orders dt.04.11.2013, the High Court held that the petitioner

shall be entitled to back wages, continuity of service and attendant

benefits and modified the punishment by imposing penalty of

withholding one annual increment without cumulative effect. The said

order has become final as no appeal was filed against the same.

3. However, the said order was not implemented and therefore, the

petitioner filed Contempt Application No.56 of 2015 in C.C.SR No.316

of 2015 with a request to implead the then Managing Director of

APSRTC as proposed respondent. At this stage, the respondent W.P.No.27661 of 2016

Corporation arranged a sum of Rs.1,29,574/- towards arrears of pay

along with salary for December, 2015. Since the amount paid was less,

the petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act

about the details of the payment. On receipt of information, the

petitioner observed that the respondents have calculated the benefits

based on the salary drawn as on the date of removal without taking into

consideration the pay revisions which were taken with effect from

01.04.1999, 01.04.2009 and 01.04.2013 and also that no notional

increments were added for the period of out of service and also that the

petitioner's services should be regularised from the date on which his

colleagues were regularised. The Contempt Case was however closed

with liberty to file separate claim for any other disputed claim.

Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dt.15.06.2015 for

implementing the order passed in W.P.No.27668 of 2005, but the same

was not implemented in its true spirit. Therefore, the petitioner got

issued a legal notice on 04.04.2016 seeking regularisation of his services

with effect from 01.08.1999 on par with his colleagues namely P.

Narahari, Conductor, E.No.272311 and M. Nagendar, Conductor,

E.No.209100 and others whose services were regularised vide W.P.No.27661 of 2016

proceedings dt.21.08.1999. 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, back wages 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.01.07.2009. 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.27661 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 20.07.2009

while the regularisation order of his colleagues is dated 21.08.1998 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.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,

it is noticed that the petitioner was initially appointed on 25.10.1997 and

(2008) 1 SCC 210 W.P.No.27661 of 2016

has been working as a Conductor in the respondent organization without

any break except for the period from the date of removal, i.e.,

11.05.1998 to the date of reinstatement, i.e., 26.02.2003. The petitioner

had been reinstated into service with continuity of service, back wages

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., 25.10.1997. 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 01.08.1999 on par with his colleagues namely, P. Narahari,

Conductor, E.No.272183, Akbar Hussain, Conductor, E.No.272311 and

M. Nagendar, Conductor, E.No.209100 and questioning the action of the

respondents in not fixing the pay by adding the notional increments

from 01.09.1999 to 22.03.2003. 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 the date on which the services of his colleagues/similarly

placed employees have been regularised and notional increments for the W.P.No.27661 of 2016

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 01.07.2009 vide orders dt.20.07.2009. The

petitioner was granted continuity of services by the order of this Court in

W.P.No.27668 of 2005 dt.04.11.2013 and the petitioner also came to

know about non-granting of notional increments and also non-

application of pay revisions on receipt of the reply from the respondents

when the petitioner had filed a Contempt Application in the year 2015.

As soon as he has come to know about the non-payment of salaries by

applying the respective pay revisions, the petitioner has immediately

filed the present Writ Petition in 2016 both for the monetary benefits as

well as regularisation. The delay in filing this Writ Petition is 7 years

and not 10 years as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Therefore, the decision relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel for W.P.No.27661 of 2016

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 from the date of initial appointment after a lapse of nearly

10 years of regularisation. In the present case on hand, the services of

the petitioner had been regularised only in the year 2009 with effect

from 01.07.2009.

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