A.Narsimha, E.255907, Shramik/Conductor v. The APSRTC

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 direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for payment of unpaid period wages from the date of medical retirement to till the date of reinstatement i.e., from 07-08-2009 to till 10-01 -2013 (41 Months) in the light of the law laid down in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and also law laid down reported in 2011(1) ALD page 823, pending disposal of the writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATESWERLLU KESAMSETW Counsel for the Respondents: SRI PANAKANTI SATISH KUMAR, SC FOR TGSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER (\ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAilIAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.3615O OF 2O14 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reiief: '...to ssue a urit oTder or direction more partianlarly one in the nature of urit of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not paging the unpaid period wages from the date of medical retirement to till tlrc date of reirstatement i.e., from O7-08-2009 to till 1O-O1-2O13 (41 Months) as illegal, arbitrary, and violation of Art.14 and 16 of tlrc Constitution of India, conseErcntly direct the respondents to pag the unpaid period wages from the date of medie.al retirement to till the date of reinstatement i.e., i.e., from 07-08-2009 to till 10-01-2013 (41 Montls) intle light of the lau laid downin the Persons utith Disabilities (fouat Opportunities, Protection of Rights and FVll Participation) Act, 1995 a.nd also law loid down reported in 2O11(1) ALD page 823 that the petitioner's senioritg be counted in the conductor cadre right from tle date of declaring tlrc petttionbr unfit for the purpose of promotiory and pass such other order or orders as fhlb Hon'ble Couri deem fit a.nd proper and topass..."

2. Heard Sri Venkateswerllu Kasamsetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Panakanti Satish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4

3. The brief facts of the case are that initially, the petitioner is appointed as conductor in the respondent Corporation on

01.10.L99L. Subsequently, the petitioner is retired from the service in the yeax 2OO9 on medical grounds. Therea_fter, the petitioner had frled a writ petition No.27994 of 2oL2 and this court granted interim direction on 07.09.2012 in W.P.M.P.No.3567 O of 2OL2 as follows:- _t --.. 2 1 "There shall be an interim direction as prayed for subject to the condition that the petitioner refunds the monetary benefits received upon his retirement." In complia-nce with said interim order, the petitioner was provided an alternate employment as a shramik on 10.01.2013 with the 4th respondent and the petitioner continues to work till today

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities are not paying the unpaid period wages from the date of medical retirement to till the date of reinstatement i.e., from o7.o8.2o09 to till 10.01.2013 and also seeks that the petitioner,s seniority be counted in the conductor cadre right from the date of declaring the petitioner as unfit for the purpose of getting promotion. Duripg the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.08.2025 in respect of the same and prays this court to pass direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 25.08.2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that they would consider the representation dated 25.08.2025 in light of the circular dated 19.06.2019 and orders passed by the Apex court in civil Appeal No.3529 of 2oL7 and. batch dated 2g.o2.2o|T and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 3 In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 6. respective parties, without going into the merits of the case, the respondent authorities are directed to dispose of the representation dated 25.08.2025 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order' 7 with the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of' There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stan] closed' //TRUE coPY// SD/.A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR AsstsraNJFEGlsrRAR seffiNoFFtcER To, 1 2 TheManagingDirector,TGSRTC,BusBhavan'RTCXRoads'Hyderabad' TheRegionalManager,TGsRTC,NalgondaRegion,Nalgonda,Nalgonda Dist.

3.TheDepotManager,TGSRTC'NalgondaDepot'NalgondaDistrict'

4.TheDepotManager,TGSRTC'MiryalagudaDepot'NalgondaDistrict'

5.oneCCtoSRIVENKATESWERLLUKESAMSEfiY,Advocate[oPUC]

6.oneCCtoSRIPANAKANTISATISHKUMAR,SCFoRTGSRTC[oPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies BSR BS i t t! t HIGH COURT DATED: 2011112025 \ 0 ORDER WP.No.36150 of 2014 '-,tiE t)f-..i ;.t { () \ 23 rr; a6 ,;... l') '9 ,., ,, *. DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS q ZdIt\zf