Telangana High Court

Asiya Sultana vs The Managing Director, on 7 March, 2025

Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili

Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili

  HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
                       AND
 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                  WRIT APPEAL No.559 of 2013

JUDGMENT:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty) This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the

learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.18718 of 2001, dated

21.06.2012, insofar as denial of consequential benefits, continuity of

service, attendant benefits and back wages is concerned.

2. Heard Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the appellant,

and Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC,

representing respondents.

3. The facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the husband of the

appellant, who was employed as a Conductor with the respondents-

Corporation, passed away due to cardiac arrest on 01.05.1997, leaving

behind his widow and dependents; that to cope with financial

hardships, the appellant submitted a representation on 27.11.1997 to

the respondents seeking compassionate appointment as a Cleaner or

Booking Clerk; that the appellant was interviewed on 05.01.1998 but

was found ineligible for the post of Conductor; that the respondents

initially suggested additional monetary compensation instead of 2 AKS, J & LNA, J

employment; that thereafter, the appellant submitted another

representation on 20.04.1998 for a suitable post, which was rejected

by the respondents on 29.05.1998. Aggrieved by the same, the

appellant filed WP. No. 17920 of 1998, and the learned single Judge

of this Court allowed the said Writ Petition vide order dated

29.03.2000, directing the respondents to consider her case for

appointment to the post of Cleaner/Booking Clerk; and that

consequently, the appellant was appointed as a Shramik under the

breadwinner scheme on 05.03.2001 at Midhani Depot in the pay scale

of Rs.1980-4165 and was assigned staff No.210239.

4. The appellant reported to duty on 05.03.2001 and was directed

to undergo medical examination at the APSRTC Hospital in Tarnaka,

where she was declared fit. In furtherance of this, the appellant, on

14.03.2001, was assigned Schedule-III duties at the garage, but the

appellant faced resistance from other staff members, as the work was

considered unsuitable for females and she had no/little knowledge

about the motor engines and spare parts. In this regard, the appellant

submitted a representation dated 16.03.2001 to the Assistant

Mechanical Foreman, Midhani Depot, citing non-cooperation from

colleagues and requesting a suitable alternative post.

3 AKS, J & LNA, J

5. Later, the Assistant Mechanical Foreman submitted a report to

the Depot Manager on 19.03.2001, alleging that the appellant has not

been performing her duties from 14.03.2001 and had left without

obtaining leave. In accordance with the said report, the Depot

Manager issued a notice on 19.03.2001, advising the appellant to

report to duty immediately. It is evident that the notice was sent by

registered post and was delivered to the appellant on 23.03.2001,

however, she failed to provide a written joining report. As there was

no response from the appellant, the Depot Manager, vide proceedings

dated 15.05.2001, cancelled the appointment order dated 05.03.2001,

on the ground that the appellant had not reported to duty within 45

days, in accordance with the time limit fixed by the corporation vide

its Circular No. PD.42/1996, dated 01.04.1996.

6. Aggrieved by the order of cancellation dated 15.05.2021, the

appellant filed the WP. No. 18718 of 2001 before this Hon'ble Court.

In the meanwhile, the appellant has also preferred an appeal before the

Divisional Manager (Hyderabad Division), who, vide proceedings

dated 17.06.2006, confirmed the cancellation order passed by the

Depot Manager.

4 AKS, J & LNA, J

7. The learned single Judge of this Court allowed W.P.18718 of

2001 vide order dated 21.06.2012 and set aside the order of

cancellation of appointment and directed the respondents to entertain

the appellant to duty by assigning her suitable post and that the

appellant shall be treated to have been appointed on 05.03.2001,

without any other benefits. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned

single Judge, the present Appeal is filed.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned

single Judge ought to have considered the fact that after receipt of

notice, dated 19.03.2001, the appellant made several attempts to

report back to duty, but she was not allowed inside the corporation.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that

termination of employment of the appellant was in violation of the

principles of natural justice, as no notice was served before her

termination. Therefore, the learned single Judge while directing the

respondents to appoint the appellant w.e.f. 05.03.2001, erred in

denying the benefit of continuity of service, attendant benefits and

back wages, which is contrary to the settled position of law and

further, erred in holding that the probation of the appellant would be 5 AKS, J & LNA, J

commenced from the reporting date. Learned Counsel finally prayed

to extend the benefit of continuity of service, attendant benefits and

back wages to the appellant for the interregnum period of removal

from service.

10. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC, representing

the respondents-Corporation, submitted that the appellant did not

report to duty after the medical examination within the stipulated time

of 45 days and as such, the Depot Manager rightly cancelled her

appointment. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed Writ

Petition No.18718 of 2001, and the learned single Judge was pleased

to pass the order dated 21.06.2012, in the favour of the appellant. In

due compliance of the said order, the Depot Manager of the Midhani

Depot issued an office order vide proceedings dated 09.07.2012,

treating the appellant to have been appointed as a Shramik w.e.f.

05.03.2001, and further, ordered that the appellant would be on

probation for a period of one year w.e.f. 30.06.2012.

11. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation

further submitted that the appellant, after being appointed to the

service, was again unauthorizedly absent from service from 6 AKS, J & LNA, J

17.08.2012 to 22.08.2012, and in the domestic inquiry, she stated ill

health as a reason for her absence, however, she did not visit the

APSRTC hospital, Tarnaka, for treatment. Learned Standing Counsel

further submitted that the disciplinary authority, after following the

due procedure, passed an order of removal from service vide

proceedings dated 24.12.2012 and the appellant is currently not on the

rolls of the respondent.

12. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that the appellant

is claiming back wages for the period from 2001 to 2012, during

which she never rendered any service to the respondent corporation.

Therefore, learned Standing Counsel finally contended that the

present Writ Appeal is devoid of any merit and as such, the same is

liable to be dismissed.

CONSIDERATION:

13. This Court is called upon to decide as to whether the learned

single Judge was justified in denying the service benefits, viz.,

continuity of service, attendant benefits and backwages, to the

appellant while directing the respondents-Corporation to treat the

appellant to have been appointed with effect from 05.03.2001.

7 AKS, J & LNA, J

14. Pursuant to the order of the learned single Judge, the Depot

Manager, Midhani Depot, issued proceedings, dated 09.07.2012,

wherein it is ordered that the appellant is treated to have been

appointed as Shramik w.e.f. 05.03.2001 and that she was kept under

probation for a period of one year w.e.f. 30.06.2012. Thus, the

respondents have duly complied with the order of the learned single

Judge in W.P.No.18718 of 2001.

15. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that

the appellant is entitled to back wages for the period from 2001 to

2012. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has relied

upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fisheries

Department, State of U.P. v. Charan Singh1 and Pradeep v.

Manganese Ore (India) Ltd 2.

16. In the counter filed on behalf of the respondent Corporation, it

is categorically stated that in obedience to the orders passed by the

learned single Judge, Depot Manger, Midhani Depot, passed order

dated 09.07.2012, treating the appellant to have been appointed as

Shramik with effect from 05.03.2001. Even thereafter, the appellant

1 (2015) 8 SCC 150 2 (2022) 3 SCC 683 8 AKS, J & LNA, J

unauthorizedly absented from duties from 17.08.2012 to 22.08.2012,

as such, after following due procedure, the disciplinary authority

passed order of removal from service dated 24.12.2012 and the said

order has become final and that as on 15.06.2022, i.e., the date of

filing of counter, the appellant is not on the rolls of the respondent

Corporation.

17. The appellant did not choose to deny the aforesaid averments

in the counter by way of filing any reply-affidavit. As such, the

averments made in the counter remained uncontroverted and

seemingly admitted by the appellant. The aforesaid averments in the

counter show the misconduct, impropriety and transgression of the

appellant.

18. In the considered opinion of this Court, the conduct and the

length of service rendered by the employee prior to termination of

service are requisite factors to be looked into and considered while

awarding back wages. In the instant case, after initial appointment, the

appellant reported to duty on 14.03.2001 and based on the adverse

report, dated 19.03.2001, she was removed from service, vide

proceedings dated 15.05.2001. Thus, the appellant has hardly worked 9 AKS, J & LNA, J

for at least a week in the respondent Corporation. Hence, it appears

that the learned single Judge while ordering reinstatement of the

petitioner, had consciously did not order for payment of back wages.

Further, it is not out of place to note that the appellant, on

reinstatement into service, pursuant to the orders passed by the

learned single Judge, has again unauthorizedly absented from duties

from 17.08.2012 to 22.08.2012 and thus, shown misconduct resulting

in passing of order of removal by the respondents for the second time.

20. In Pradeep's case (cited supra), relied upon by learned counsel

for the appellant, it is a case where the appellant, a qualified Chartered

Accountant, was appointed as Manager (Finance) by order dated

22.10.1997 and he was visited with dismissal order dated 12.08.2008.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court after citing various judgments of Hon'ble

Supreme Court and on appreciating the facts of the said case, found

that there was any worthwhile reason for the respondent to terminate

the services of the appellant and accordingly, directed the respondent

to pay a sum of Rs.80 lakhs as back wages to the appellant.

21. In the instant case, the appellant has hardly put in any

worthwhile service, i.e., she rendered services in the respondent 10 AKS, J & LNA, J

Corporation only six (6) days, unlike the appellant in Pradeep's case

(cited supra), who has served respondent organization for eleven (11)

years. In Pradeep's case (cited supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

noted down certain propositions culled out from various other

judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are as hereunder:-

"In case of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule. The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating authority or the Court may take into consideration the length of service of the employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/workman, the financial condition of the employer and similar other factors."

22. In the present case, it is apposite to note that the appellant has

rendered negligible length of service in the respondent Corporation,

i.e., admittedly she rendered services in the respondent Corporation

only for six (6) days. Thus, in the peculiar facts of the present case,

where the appellant had hardly worked only for six (6) days, the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep's case (cited

supra) is of no help to the appellant. That apart, in the light of the

aforesaid proposition of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep's case

(cited supra) and in view of the rider that while deciding the issue of 11 AKS, J & LNA, J

back wages, the length of service rendered by an employee has to be

considered, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant is

not entitled to any back wages for the period from 2001 to 2012.

CONCLUSION:

23. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered

view that the learned single Judge was justified in not granting any

benefits viz., continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages

to the appellant. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the

impugned order dated 21.06.2012 passed by the learned single Judge

in W.P.No.18718 of 2001.