ROPEWAY, (UNDER TERMINATION) v. Managing Director

1. MSV REDDY S/O SRI M R K REDDY, R/O PLOT NO. 201 CYR COLONY, ALMASGUDA SAROORNAGAR MANDAL HYDERABAD 500 058 OCC: DEPUTY MANAGER, APTDC AT SRISAILAM ROPEWAY, (UNDER TERMINATION) ...PETITIONER AND

THE A P TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, 3-5-891, its Chairperson and represented by Himayathnagar Hyderabad Managing Director ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus:- i) To declare the proceedings sued by the respondent Corporation terminating petitioner services as Junior Assistant through orders dated 13.01.2013 vide proceedings Proc. Rc. No. APTDC/Admn/P2/ 01/2013-1 dated 03.01.2013 for no reason as illegal, arbitrary, unjust apart from being violative of principles of natural justice and ii) The Proceedings dated 13.01.2013 being in violation of the Respondent's own circular dated 11.01.2011. iii) Consequently to set aside the same by directing the respondents to re-engage him as Deputy Manager from the date of termination order by giving all service benefits including pay, allowances continuity of service and attendance benefits. 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 28204 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the termination order dated 03.01.2013 vide Procs. Rc. No. APTDC/Admn/ P2/ 01/ 2013-1, directing the respondent to re-engage the petitioner as Deputy Manager, Pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. A RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent:

1. SRINIVASULA REDDY VAJRALA SC FOR APTDC Ltd The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The petitioner is challenging the order of termination dated 03.01.2013 as illegal and irrational. It is the stand of the petitioner that he was engaged as Deputy Manager vide proceedings dated 28.08.2012 and respondent-Corporation terminated his services without conducting any enquiry.

The petitioner is an Ex-Serviceman and has applied for employment in pursuance of an advertisement dated 22.02.2007. The petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a period of one (01) year along with several other employees. It is stated that the petitioner had discharged his duties with utmost integrity. However, the respondent-Corporation terminated the services of the petitioner without conducting any enquiry. The termination order dated

03.01.2013 is under challenge.

The learned Standing Counsel appearing respondent-Corporation submits that the petitioner and others were engaged on contract basis for a period of one (01) year. The petitioner was engaged on

13.05.2012 and his contract period was to end on 12.05.2013. The petitioner was paid a consolidated amount of Rs.19,560/- during the period of engagement. It is submitted that several irregularities, which came to the knowledge of the respondent, were communicated to the petitioner by issuance of a memo dated 01.10.2012 and that the petitioner had suppressed the same in the writ petition. It is also submitted that the terms of engagement 4 entitle the respondent to terminate the services of the petitioner by giving one (01) month notice or one (01) month wages in lieu thereof. Accordingly, the respondent-Corporation paid the notice period wages to the petitioner and terminated his services. The terms of employment govern the service conditions of the employees. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged on contract basis and either party could have terminated the contract by issuing one (01) month notice or wages in lieu thereof to the other party as per the terms and conditions contained in the agreement.

Considering the same and also considering the fact that the petitioner accepted the notice period wages, a direction for re-engagement of the petitioner cannot be issued by entertaining the writ petition.

On these considerations, this Court is not inclined to interfere.