S. Ashok vs Telangana State Road Transport ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2866 Tel

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

          Writ Petition No.24425 of 2016
ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following prayer:-

"to call for the records from respondents and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No.P6/123(2)/2010-RR, dated 25.11.2010 regularizing the services of the petitioner with effect from 01.09.2010 instead of 01.01.2010 on par with his colleagues as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, discriminatory, amounts to an act of unfair labour practice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and grant all consequential benefits."

2. Heard Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Thoom Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner was appointed as a driver on contract basis in the

respondent Corporation on 18.04.2007. During his service,

the respondent Corporation terminated the service of the

petitioner on 16.10.2008 on the alleged ground of

unauthorised absence without conducting any enquiry and

without following due process of law. Aggrieved by the same,

the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority.

The petitioner was reinstated into service as a fresh driver in

the month of December, 2008. The petitioner filed Writ

Petition vide W.P.No.22303 of 2010 questioning the action of

the respondents therein in not extending the continuity of

service and all consequential service benefits and the said

Writ Petition was allowed by this Hon'ble Court on

07.09.2010 taking into consideration of the orders passed in

other Writ Petition vide W.P.No.8090 of 2010, dated

12.04.2010 directing the respondents to extend the service

benefits to the petitioner from the date of termination to till

the date of re-engagement. Inspite of submitting several

representations, the respondents have not considered the

claim of the petitioner and on the other hand, respondent

No.2 issued impugned order dated 25.11.2010 rejecting the

claim of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

the impugned order passed by the respondent Corporation is

contrary to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.22303

of 2010, dated 07.09.2010.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the

earlier Writ Petition filed vide W.P.No.22303 of 2010 by the

petitioner was disposed on 07.09.2010 basing on the order

passed by this Court in W.P.No.8090 of 2010, dated

12.04.2010. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent

Corporation filed Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of this

Court and the same was dismissed. Questioning the order

passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the respondent

Corporation carried the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme

Court by way of Civil Appeal. The Hon'ble Apex Court

specifically held that the respondents therein have not

challenged the reinstatement orders issued by the Appellate

Authority. The respondents therein straight away seeking

extension of the service benefits, grant of continuity of service

treating the removal period as on duty is not permissible

unless and until they challenge the punishment orders

passed by the respondent Corporation and also not entitled to

claim seniority and other benefits.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the

respective parties and after perusal of the material available

on record, it is undisputed fact that the petitioner was

appointed as a driver on contract basis in the respondent

Corporation on 18.04.2007 and his services were terminated

on 16.10.2008 on the ground of unauthorised absence. By

virtue of the orders passed by the Appellate Authority, the

petitioner was appointed as a fresh driver in the month of

December, 2008. It is also undisputed fact that the petitioner

earlier filed W.P.No.22303 of 2010 questioning the action of

the respondent in not ordering re-engaging with continuity of

service as a contract driver as illegal and the said Writ

Petition was allowed on 07.09.2010 in terms of the orders

passed in W.P.No.8090 of 2010, dated 12.04.2010. It is very

much relevant to mention here that the respondent

Corporation in similar other matters carried the matter before

the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of Civil Appeal No.12011 of

2018 and Civil Appeal No.12012 of 2018 and the Hon'ble

Supreme Court allowed the appeals on 07.12.2018 by setting

aside the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court

and held that the workmen are entitled for seniority and other

benefits from the date of fresh appointment into the service in

the respondent Corporation and they are not entitled to claim

service benefits from the date of termination to date of fresh

appointment. The principles laid down in the above case is

squarely applicable to the case on hand.

7. In view of the foregoing reasons and also the principles

laid down in the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (supra), the

petitioner is not entitled for any relief sought in the present

Writ Petition.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO Date: 04.10.2023 sa

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

Writ Petition No.24425 of 2016

Dated: 04.10.2023

Sa