The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI J{-ISTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAWLI AND HON'BLE SRI.JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALTSHETTY \\/R.l'f API'F.AL No.559 of 2013 JUJGMENT: tper l|n hfu .\ri Jusrite Laxmi Narayuna Atishetryl This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the leamed single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.l87l8 of 2001, dated

21.06.2012, insofar as denial of consequential benefits, continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages is concerned.

2. llcard Sri \.\irrasinrlra (ioud, learned counsel fbr the appellant, and Sri M. Ranr \{ohan Reddy. learned Standing Counsel for TSR'[C, representing rt's po rr rleuts i. 'l'he lacts ot' rhe case, in nutshell, are that the husband of the appellant, who u'as cntployed as a Conductor with the respondents- Corporation, passed away due to cardiac arrest on 01.05.1997, leaving behind his r idou and dependents; that to cope with financial hardships, the ;rppcllanr submirted a representation on 27.11.1997 to the respondents seeking compassionate appointment as a Cleaner or Booking Clerli. thar the appcllarrt was interviewed on 05.01.1998 but was found incligible lor the post of Conductor; that the respondents initially sugeestcd additional monetary compensation instead of b .l(-\1. Jd t.\:..1. J 11.1.\o 559 ol 20l3 ( \ employment; that thereafter, the appellant submitted another representation on 20.04.1998 for a suitable post, which was re.]ected by the rcspondents on 29.05.1998. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed WP. No. 17920 of 1998, and the leamed single Judge ol this Court allowed the said Writ Petition vide order dated

29.03.2000, directing the respondents to consider her case lor appointment to the post of Cleaner/Booking CIerk; and that consequently, the appellant was appointed as a Shrarrrik under the breadwinner scheme on 05.03.2001 at Midhani Depot in the pay scale of Rs. 1980-4 165 and was assigned staff No.210239.

4. I'he appellant reported to duty on 05.03.2001 and was directed to undergo n.redical examination at the APSRTC Hospital in Tarnaka, rvhere she was declared fit. In lurtherance of this, the appellant, orl

14.03.2001, was assigned Schedule-lll 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 subrnitted a representation dated 16.03.200 1 to the Assistant Mechanical Foreman, Midhani Depot, citing non-cooperation frotr-t colleagues and requesting a suitable alternative post. \-/ AKS,J&LI|A,J Ll/-4.No.559 of20)J

5. Later, the Assistant Mechanical Foreman submitted a report to the Depot Manager on 19.0i.2001, atteging that the appellant has not been performing her duties lrom 14.03.2001 and had left without obtaining leave. ln accordance with the said report, the Depot Manager issued a notice on 19.03.2001, advising the appellant to report to duty irnrnediately. It is evident that the notice was sent by registered post and was delivered to the appellant on 23.03.2001, however, she tztiled to provide a written joining report. As there was no response ll'om the appellanr, thc 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 u,ith the time lirrit fixed by the corporation vide its Circular No. PD.42l1996. dated 0l .04.1996

6. Aggrieved bv rhe order of cancellation dated 15.0.5.2021, the appellant filecl the WP. No. 18718 of 2001 before this Hon,ble Court. In the meanwhile, the appellant has also preferred an appeal before the Divisional Managc-r (llyderabad Division), who, vide proceedings dated 17.06.2006. contirmed rhe cancellation order passed by the Depot Manager. Fr I AKS, J & I.I'A, J ttA llo 559 o.[ 201 3 {

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 entertaill the appellant to duty by assigning her suitable post and that the appellant shall be treated to have been appointed on 05.0i.2001, without any other benefits. Aggrieved by the said order olthe Iearned single.ludge, the present Appeal is filed.

8. Lcarned coutrsel lor thc appellant submitted that the learned single Judge ought to have considered the lact that after receipt of notice. datcd 19.03.2001, the appellant made several attempts to report back to duty, but she was not allowed inside the corporation.

9. Lcamcd 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 belore her termination. Therefore, the leamed 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 ^-frU;ther, ened in holding that the probation of the appellant would be -\ AKS, J & LNA,J IvA No.559 of 201 3 commenced lrom the reporting date. Leamed Counsel finally prayed I to extend the beneflt of continuitv ol service, attendant benefits and back wages to the appellant for the interregnum period of removal lrom service

10. Per contra. learned Standing Counsel lor 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.1lt718 of 2001, and the learned single Judge rvas pleased to pass the order clate'd 21 .06.201?., in the favour ol the appellant. ln due compliance ol'the said order, the Depot Manager of the Midhani Depot issued an office order vide proceedings dated t)9.07 .2012, treating the uppellant 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. 30.06.201 2. ll. Learned Standing Counsel lor the respondents-Corporation further subnritted that the appcllant, after being appointed to the service, was again unauthorizedly absent fiom service from 6 AKS.J&I,NT.J 1t,4.No.559 of 201 3 \

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. Tamaka, for treatment. Leamed Standing Counsel further submitted that the disciplinary authority, after following the due procedure, passed an order ol removal from service vide proceedings dated 24.12.2012 and the appellant is cunently not on the rolls ol the respondent.

12. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that the appellant is claiming back wages lbr 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. CoNst opn,rllolt:

13. This Court is called upon to decide as to whether the learned single Judge was justified in denying the service benefits, vD., continuity ol 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 lYA.No.559 of 2013

14. Pursuant to the order of the leamed single Judge, the Depot Manager, Midlrani 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' Ihus, the respondents have duly complied with the order of the leamed single Judge in W.P.No. I 8718 of 2001 .

15. The main contention of leamed counsel lor the appellant is'that the appellant is entitled to back wages for the period fiom 2001 to

2012. ln support of this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fisheries Department, State of tl.P. v. Charan Singht and Pradeep v' Manganese Ore (IndiQ Ltt.

16. In the counter filed on behalfofthe respondent Corporation' it is categorically stated that in obedience to the orders passed by the leamed 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 r (2022) 3 SCC 683 I 8 AKS, J & L\,1.J lrA No.559 of 201 3 \ 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 daled 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 sdch, the averments made in the counter remained uncontroverted and seemingly admitted by the appettant. The aforesaid averments in the counter show the misconduct, impropriety and transgression of the appellant.

18. In the considered opinion ol 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 .- €roceedings dated 15.05.2001 Thus, the appellant has hardly worked ,/ / 9 lKS.J&LNA,J tY.4 i\'o.559 of,2013 for at least a u'eek in the respondent Corporation. Hence, it appears that the leamed single Judge while ordering reinstatement ol 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 lrom duties fronr 17.08.201 I to 22.08.2012 and thus, shown miscouduct resulting in passing oforder olremoval by the respondents for the second time.

20. ln Pradeep's case (cited supra), relied upon by'learned counsel tbr the appellanl, it is a case where the appellant, a qualilied Chartered Accountant, was appointed as Manager (F-inance ) by order dated

22.10.1997 and he was visited with dismissal order dated t2.08.2008. 'Ihe Hon'ble Suprenre Court after citing various judgrnents ol Hon'ble Supreme Courl and on appreciating the facts of the said case, found that there was irny worthwhile reason for the respondent to teminate the services ol the appellant and accordingly, directed thc respondent to pay a sum ofRs.80 lakhs as back wages to the appellant.

21. In the instant case, the appellant has hardll, put in any wo(hwhile service, i.e., she rendered services in the respondent i l0 .1(S. ./ & /. \'J. ./ lt ..1.\o 559 ol )01 -l 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'bte Supreme Court has noted down certain propositions culled but from various other judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are as hereunder:- "In case of wrongful termination of service' reinstalement with continuily of sen'ice and bac'k wages is lhe normal rule' The aforesaid rule is stbject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages' the adjudicating authority or the Court may take into cottsitlertttion the length of sen'ice of the employee/workman' the nature of misconduct' i"f anlt' fountl proved against the entpLol'ee/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 Courl 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 white deciding the issue ol - ,{A:SJ&L\:J.J u ,1 ,\'o 559 of 201 3 back wages, the len-u,th 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 Io 2012. CoNCLUSToN: 23, In view ol'the loregoing reasons, this Cou( is of the considered view that the learned single Judge was justified in not granting any benefits u2., continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages to the appellant. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order datcd 21 .06.2012 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 18718 ol200l.

24. Accordingll,. the Writ Appeal is dismissed. 'Ihere shall be no order as to costs.

25. As a se quel. the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed I To, //TRUE COPYII SD/. B. SATYAVATHI JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER I '1 . One CC to SRl. V. NARASIMHA GOUD, Advocate [OPUC] 2 One CC to SRI IM. RAM MoHAN REDDY, (SC FOR TSRTC) [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies BM SS &nr- I ] !' I t I !$.''--^ I HIGH COURT DATED:07103t2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.559 of 2013 ( f, o {rlE sfA/ ( <r^ (( ? 3 fiAY 2025 -d- SI'.1 DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS PHG. A\e \"r I t F r i I r F l. : r i r t" F t r : I I t