K. Damoder v. '1 . THE APSRTC

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. H. R. CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI U. SHANTHI BHUSHAN RAO, S.C. FOR TSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION No. 26L77 of 2OO5 ORDER: This wrir petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not granting Special Grade Incremen[ and leave encashment and consequently to direct the respondents to confer the said benefits and to pay the balance of wages with l2o/o interest per annum.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner herein stated that petitioner joined in APSRTC on 15.12.1973 as a Booking Senior Clerk. Later, he rvas designated as a Senior Assistanl with effect from 07.O6.1989. A Charge Sheet was issued against him on 03.10. 1996 that he absented duties without any rntlmation or prior sanction of leave. The Enquiry Oflicer submitted a report after issuing show_cause noticc proposing the punishment of removal from service. When the petitioner requested one month time for submitting his explanation, ',r,ithout granting such time, he was removed from service. Challenging the said Order, he preferred an appeal and the said appeal r.r.as rejected on 29.1O.1997 and thus against the said Order, he approached the Industrial Disputes Tribunal urde I.D.No.186 of 1999 (Otd: I.D.No.3T2 of t99T). By ()rcler dated 2

18.09.2OO1, the Industrial Disputes Tribunal modifled the punishment ald reinstated the petitioner with continuity of service but without backwages and also with the denial of annual increments for three years without cumulative effect.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that petitioner has completed 12 years of service as Senior Grade Assistant by Ol.O7 .2OOl. As per the approved policy of the Corporation and also as per the settlement reached between the Union and Management, he was eligible for Special Grade lncrement with effect from Ol.O7 .2O0 I , but he was nor conferred with any such benefit, as such he got issued a legal notice dated 22.07.2OO2 on the personal Ofhcer, Medak Region. Due to personal and health reasons, petitioner took voluntary retirement on 17.10.2005, even at that time also the benefits under Special Grade Increment was not added while hxing the retirement benefits. As on O 1 .07.200 I , he was drau,ing Rs.8,565/- and it should have been Rs.8,235/_ by adding Special Grade Increments and the other associated benefits such as HRA, PF, DA, Gratuity, etc., .\ /ith interest @ l2o/o per annum. He also contended that the Industrial Disputes Tribunal in the Award dated 18.09.2001 specifically observed that his continuity of service is to be considered, but it was not -/ 3 considered by conferring the Special Grade Increments after completing 12 lrears of service. The management has issued a Circular No.20 65/89 dated 03.06. 1989 and another circular dated 28. I 1. 1989 and a-lso issued a Memorandum dated 17 .09.1991 and the same is in force. The said circular was interpreted in favour o[ the workman in W.P.No.5726 of 2OOO and the same '"\,as confirmed in W.A.No. l3O1 of 2O0O and the SLP against the said writ appeal was also dismissed 4- L,earned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that as per the Regulation No.21 of the Empkryees (CCA) Regulations, 1967 , the continuity of service granted by the Labour Court shall be interpreted in favour of the workman. Petitioner has not given any terminal benefits by rvay of taking into account of 24O days of leave encashment, which is permissible under Leave Regulations (APSRTC), 1963 and it shall be granted with l2ok interest per annum. He has filed the Memorandum of APSRTC dated 17.09.1991, Iegal notice dated

22.07.2OO2 and also the notil-rcation dated 17.O7.2005 before this Court.

5. In the counter hled by the respondents they stated that the pcriod oI absencc of the petitioner from removal till 4 rernstatement covered up for totally 4 years 7 months arld 12 days. Hence, the period of out of service was not taken into consideration for allowing the Special Grade Increment and he should be eligible for Special Grade Increment only on completion of total service of 12 years, excluding absenteeism, loss of pay. Though the petitioner submitted an appiication for voluntary retirement on 17.IO.20O5, while it was under process, he was suspended in a case of alteration of records. As he was under suspension, he is not entitled for Special Grade at that Juncture. He is also not entitled for the benefit of Gratuity. When he was out of service, his voluntary retirement notice was still pending and hence no retirement benefits were calculated and paid and thus there is no violation of constitutional laws. They also stated that petitioner is not entitled for terminal benefits since he has not ceased to be in service.

6. The main contention of the writ petitioner is that he was reinstated with continuity of service, as such he is entitled for Special Grade Increment after 12 years of service, but the Memorandum dated LZ .Og .lggl reads that there was an understanding between the Management and the Employees Union on 29.Oa.D91, in which it was stated that Special Grade Increment to the employees whose annual increment was 5 postponed on account of LWP/absenteeism and completed 12 years of service as on 3Otr April of the said year to allow the special grade during the course of the year after completion of the punishment period. It need not wait till next year. It was stated that the employee is entitled for special grade from the hrst following month instead of first May of the next year. If the cases arising on or after 22.08.1991, they may be disposed off according to the circular. it was also stated that as per the Memorandum 5ft cited that the LWP/Absenteeism period which counts for postponing of normal annual increments in the particular post shall be deducted from the total service for the purpose of completion of l2 years service for special grade. No doubt, petitioner herein rvas reinstated with continuity of service, but the respondents stated that the period of absenteeism cannot be counted while granting speciai grade increments. There was also circular to that effecl between the Management and Employees Union and the Corporation has to follow the terms of the Memorandum while granting special grade increment to the employees therein.

7. Though the petitioner stated that he opted for voluntary retirement, notice is still pending, respondents contended that he was suspended and terminal benehts cannot be granted as I I ,li l l I 6 he was not ceased to be in service. Therefore, respondents herein are directed to consider these two aspects as per the regulations of the corporation and to grant benerrt to the writ petitioner herein within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

8. With the above direction, the present writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.V.KAVITHA DEPUW REGISTR SECTION OFFICER and Managing Director, TSRTC, Musheerabad, To, '1 . The Vice Chairman Hyderabad.

2. The Divisional Manager, TSRTC, Sanga Reddy Division Medak District, Sanga Reddy.

3. The Depot Manager, TSRTC, Sanga Reddy Depot, Sanga Reddy, Medak District.

4. One CC to SRI B. H. R. CHOWDARY, Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRI U SHANTHI BHUSHAN RAO, S.C. foTTSRTC IOPUCI 6. Two CD Copies + MP GJP ?N HIGH COURT DATED:1210312025 o(J , ( * {HESI 16 iIJl 2m a, z. -* .. ;(_-\. - - .- _:.- _ .-- ORDER WP.No.26177 ot 2005 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS V,-b