The High Court · 2025

.....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit firecr therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction, more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, directing that the imposed punished whire setting aside the removar order dt. 07.09.2016 vide proceedings No.pA/19(5)r2o1r- Rlv/NLG, Nalgonda, Dt. 16.05.20 r 7 reinstating the petitioner into service by reducing three annuar increments with cumurative arong with another harsh punishment of treating intervening period from removar to reports to duty treated as Not On Duty for the purpose of wages, increments, seniority service and settlement even after confirming decraring that rhe petitioner possess crean record during in service of 23 years imposing such punishment in not proper, harsh and mentar rorture by modifying the punishment frorr reduction three annual increments fr:m cumulative to without cumulative by tr(,aling continuity of service for all purpose with regards to promotion and retirement bt-.nefits. |.A.NO:1 OF 2019 Petition Under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circurrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court rrzr;, be preased to issue directions to g'anl stay on the reduction of increments t ll disposal of writ petition challenged to the proceedings No. pA/95(5y2017'-R[/-NLG, Dt. 16.05.2017 so far as the imposed harsh punished, pending disposar of the writ petition. counsel for the Petit oner : Ms. A.BHAVANT, REp. sRr A.VENKATESHWARLU Counsel for the Respondents : SRI N.VASUDEV REDDY, SC FOR. TSRTC The Court made the lollowing ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WR.IT PETITION No.377 of 2019 ORDER: Heard Ms. A.Bhavani, learned counsel representing Sri A.Venkateswarulu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Sri N. Vasudev Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC, appearing on behalf of respondents.

2. The oetitioner aooroach the Court seekino Draver as under: "...to issue an appropriate writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus. directing that the imposed punished while setting aside the removal order dt. 07.O9.2OL6 vide proceedings No.PAl19(5)/2017- RM/NLG, Nalgonda, Dt. 15.05.2017 reinstating the petitioner into service by reducing three annual increments with cumulative along with another harsh punlshment of treating intervening perlod from removal to reports to duty treated as "Not On Duty" tor the purpose of wages, increments, seniority service and settlement even after confirming declaring that the petitioner possess clean record during in service of 23 years imposing such punishment in not proper, harsh and mental torture by modifying the punishment from reduction three annual increments from cumulative to without cumulative by treating continuity of service for all purpose with regards to promotion and retirement benefits, and pass... "

3. When the matter is taken uo for hearino. counsel reoresentino Sri Ms.A.B hava NI ea rned A.Ven kateswa rul u- ea rn edc unsel aDDearinq on behalf of 2 SN. J \vP 3'7'7 2019 the petiti oner on record submit that the sub iect issue rn the rese nt writ Detitlon ts souarelv covered l: e order of this Co urt dated 30. 12.2()22 oassed in .P. No.15O59 of 2OO8 and the recent orders of this Court dated _lg,O7.2OZ4 oassed il W.P.No .26724 of2 nd the 2gder dated 16.09.20: r5 ssed in W.P . No.1939 ol 2O2l ,rn the basis of the s aid order d ted 30. 2.2,J22 oass d-tn___!,v.P. No.15O59 of 2OO8. The Retevant portion of 1.he__qdCf_gf this Coun da

30.12 .2O22 oa sed in W.P. No. 19a 5059 2(,0 as e:dra ed here nder "Taking into consideration the fa(tts and circutnstances of the case and also the length o' services rend(:red by the petitioner, this Court deems t fit and propcr to modify the quantum of punishment of s,toppage of annual grade increment \i/ithout cumulative ef1:r;t for a perioJ oF two years. However, it is made clear l.hat this modi ]cation oF punishment shall have prospect ,, r effect only from the date of passing of this order and the petiti)ner shall not be enti ed to claim the Ionetary benelits for the period prior to passing of this orde-,,.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for TGRTC, appearing on behalf of the respondents does not disput e the said submissicn made by the tearned counsel aJrpearing on behalf of :he petitioner. .l l 3 SN. J wP:i77 2019 In view of the said submissions made by both the

5. learned counsel, the writ petition is partly allowed in terms of the order of this Court dated 3(J.12.2022 passed an W.P. No. 15059 of 2OO8. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, any pending. in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To SA Telangana State. lVlusheerabad, RTC X Road, Hyderabad-2O. SECTION OFFICER 1. The Vice - Chairman and Managing Director, TSRTC, Bus Bhavan Complex, 2, The Regional Manager, Nalgonda Region, TSRTC, Nalgonda District, 3. The Depot Manager, ISEIC, fi,4iryatguda Depot, Nalgonda District. 4. The D^epot lanager, TSRTC, Devarikonda Depot, Nilgonda District. 5. One CC to SRt A.VENKATESHWARLU, Advocbte tOp[JC] 6. One CC to SRt N.VASUDEV REDDY, SC FOR TSRTC Advocate tOpUCl 7. Two CD Copies $, HIGH COURT DATED:2410912025 C) ,,1t:. , aC T r'r ,1 l, $ $ ,.( l.':' -o (l*'.a' --J-/ tY O -r- a1 \ll.fl,it n.b (].C.I'ODAY \ 'I\ I il , 11 :i,i ORDER WP.No.377 ,tf2019 PARTLY AL LOWING THE W.P WITHOUT C;OSTS. 1 1) \D