Telangana High Court
Y.Yellaiah, S/O.Gattaiah vs Apsrtc on 12 January, 2024
Author: Juvvadi Sridevi
Bench: Juvvadi Sridevi
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI
WRIT PETITION No.23658 of 2013
ORDER:
Petitioner in this writ petition has questioned the order dated
09.11.2012, regularizing his service from 01.12.2011 instead of
01.10.2010 as was done in case of similarly situated persons and
sought for consequential direction directing the respondents to
regularize his service with effect from 01.10.2010.
2. Heard both sides and perused the record.
3. Petitioner was appointed as contract driver in the
respondent/RTC on 16.02.2007. On the ground that he caused an
accident by driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner, he was
terminated by order dated 27.03.2010. The appeal filed by him was
rejected, however, in the revision preferred by him, he was ordered to
be re-engaged as a fresh contract driver by order dated 23.07.2010.
Aggrieved of the said order passed by the revisional authority to
re-engage him as a fresh driver, petitioner has filed W.P.No.4014 of
2011. The said writ petition was disposed of on 23.01.2012 directing
the respondents to extend the benefit of continuity of service from the
JS, J
date of removal till the date of reinstatement for the purpose of
regularization of service. In spite of such orders by this Court, the
impugned order is passed regularizing the service of petitioner from
01.12.2011 but not from 01.10.2010, from which date, the colleagues
of petitioner were regularized. Therefore, petitioner prays to set aside
the impugned order and regularize his services with effect from
01.10.2010.
4. Respondents have filed counter affidavit admitting the facts as
narrated by the petitioner, including the orders passed by this Court in
W.P.No.4014 of 2011 on 23.01.2012. It is their case that since the
petitioner was appointed on contract basis and as his services were
terminated due to the accident caused by him by driving the bus in a
rash and negligent manner, he cannot be treated on par with his
colleagues whose services were regularized with effect from
01.10.2010, therefore, the services of petitioner were regularized
w.e.f. 01.12.2011. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the writ
petition. The respondents have referred to the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.12011 of 2018 and batch,
wherein, it was held that granting continuity of service to the person
who committed misconduct would place him on the same footing as
JS, J
other contractual employees who have an un-blemished record, which
is not permissible. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside
the orders passed by the High Court in the writ petitions granting
continuity of service for the purpose of regularization. By relying on
the said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents have
prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. The undisputed fact in this case is that the petitioner herein was
appointed as a Driver on contract basis. The petitioner was terminated
from service on the ground that he was responsible for an accident
due to his rash and negligent driving of the bus. The revisional
authority has ordered for his reinstatement, however, as a fresh driver.
The basis for the petitioner's claim for grant of continuous service is
the orders of this Court in W.P.No.4014 of 2011 dated 23.01.2012,
wherein, this Court has directed the respondents to extend continuity
of service to the petitioner for the purpose of regularization.
However, it is to be noted that on the said aspect of granting
continuity of service for the purpose of regularization, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide orders in Civil Appeal No.12011 of 2018 and
batch which were decided on 07.12.2018, has set aside such orders.
JS, J
In paragraph Nos.10, 11 and 12, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
as under:
"10. In the present case, the workman did not choose to
assail either the termination of his services
following the enquiry or the fresh appointment. All
that was sought was that he should have the
benefit of continuity of service from the date of the
earlier termination until re-engagement.
11. Such a direction could not have been issued by the
learned Single Judge without the termination being
put into question. The grant of continuity was not
sustainable for the simple reason that unless the
order of termination and of the fresh appointment
were challenged and adjudicated upon, seniority
would necessarily have to count with effect from
the date of the fresh appointment. As a matter of
first principle, continuity can be granted when an
order for termination is set aside, to ensure that
there is no hiatus in service.
12. There is another reason why the judgment of the
High Court cannot be sustained. It is common
ground that the Appellant has recruited personnel
like the present Respondent on contract after a
regular process of selection. Eventually, the
contract employees are to be regularized.
Granting continuity of service to a person such as
the Respondent, who was found to have committed
misconduct, would place him on the same footing
as other contractual employees who have a record
without blemish. Hence, once a fresh appointment
was given to the Respondent and neither the
termination nor the fresh engagement was placed
in issue, the grant of continuity of service by the
High Court was manifestly misconceived."
JS, J
6. Relying on the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court,
a batch of similar writ petitions in W.P.No.20566 of 2012 and batch
have been dismissed by order dated 20.02.2020, declining to grant
continuity of service.
7. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, the petitioner herein cannot claim regularization of his service
with effect from 01.10.2010. Therefore, this Court does not find any
ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 09.11.2012.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
____________________
JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J
Date: 12.01.2024
Lk
