The High Court · 2025

This writ petition is fired seeki,g the foilowing relief: "...to rssue a urit or ord.er or d.irection more particularlA one in the nafire of Writ of Mand.amus declaring that the action of the respond.ents in not allotting continuity of seruie and. seniority in the post of anductor from the d.ate of initiat appointment (17-08-1990) for effecting promotion to tie post of Junior Assrstanf on par with his batch mates by placing him in appropriate place is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjusfi unreasonable and. contrary to the Auard dt. 21-06-2013 in W.p.No.2Oaa6 of 2OO1 and" ansequently dirict the respondents to effect promotion to the petitioner as Junior Assfsfanf *,.e.f. th.e date of hb batch mates promotion by counting his senioritg from his d.ate of initiat appointment and. also oth.er beneftts under continuitg of seruice and. pass such ot|er order or orders.,'

2. Heard Mr. P. venkateshwer Rao, learned counser for petitioner ad Mr. Nizampur chandra shekar, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC for respondents.

3..Brieffacts: Petitioner was appointed as causal conductor in respondent-corporation on 13.os.19g9 and his services were regularized on 17.09.1990. petitioner was removed a J JAK.I W.['.No.16454 of20l4 from service on 09.06.L997 for involvement in serious cash and ticket irregularities.

3.1 Challenging the removal, petitioner filed I.D.No.307 af LggT and Labour Court vide award, dated:24.03'1999, ord.ered. for fresh reinstatement without continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages

3.2 Petitioner filed w.P.No.20446 of 2001 challenging the a.warrl- dated 24.o3.1999, in I.D.No.307 0f L997. Matter was reierred to Lok Adalat, cn 21.O512013, an arxrard was passed. Pursuant to aw,ard of Lok Adalat, proceedings, dated 23.09.2014, were issued. As per the proceedings, continuity of services gfanted in terms of Lok Adalat award can be reckoned only for the purpose of retirement benefits, it cannot be reckoned for purposes of promotion and that petitioner is not entitled for protection of his seniority with effect from 17.O8.1990 on par rvith his batch mates.

3.3 Proceedings, dated 23.09 .2014, were issued pursuant to interim orders passed on 1.7.06 .2014 in W.P.No.16454 of

2014. There is no challenge to the proceeclings, dated r f 4 JAK J WP.No.l6454 of 2014 23'09-2014, it is specilically stated in the proceedings that petitioner is not entitled for protection of seniority and his continuity of service is only for the purpose of retirement benefits.

4. It is averred in the aJlidavit and contended that petitioner was employed as casual conductor in respondent- corporation from 13.0s.19g9, his services were regularized on 17.o8-199o a,d removed from service on 09.o6.1992 for cash and ticket irregularities. That challenging the removal, ' petitioner filed I.D.No.307 of lggr, Labour court vide award, dated 24.os.L999, ordered for fresh reinstatement without continuity of service, attendant benelits and back wages- That w.P.No.20446 of 2oo1 was filed challenging the award of Labour court and writ petition was referred to Lok Adalat for settlement. That Lok Adalat vide award, dated 2L-06.2013, recorded a compromise between the petitioner and respondent-Corporation.

4.t award, It is averred and contended that as per Lok Adalat is entitled for benefits with continuity of service. That as per interim orders of the court dated $ti1to""r .- ,,i 5 JAK, J W.t'.No.16454 of 2014 L7.O6.2OL4, respondent-Corporation issued proceedings' dated 23.09.2014, stating that continuity of service would be reckoned for the purpose of retirement benefits and not for any other purposes including promotion and entitlement for protection of seniority on par with his batch mates w.e.f.

17.08. 1990,

4.2 it is averreci anci contended tirat petitioner is entitled for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant. That petitioner is entitled for seniority and other benefits from his initial apoointment and that becau-se of wrong interpretation, petitioner was not granted l'2 years of Special Grade Pay and pay fixation is not done properly.

4.3 That a notice, dated 22.02.2014, was issued seeking continuity of service with seniority, as petitioner was not considered w-ith similarly situated persons. That he is entitled for continuity of service and seniority in the post of Conductor from the date of his initial appointment, promotion to the post of Junior Assistant on par with his batch mates and that his seniority be counted from initial date of appointment and benefits be granted. Learned t" { 6 JAK, J W.P.No.l6454 of 2014 counsel relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Coromandel Minlng and Dxports (P) Ltd, Hgderabad and anotlpr Vs. Unl.on of India and, otherst.

5. Learned counsel for respondent-Corporation submits that pursuant to the Lok Adalat award, petitioner's salary was fixed in appropriate scale w.e.f. O1.01.2013 and pursuant to interim orders on 17.06.2014, proceedings were issued informing that continuity of service is reckoned only for the purpose of retirement benefits and cannot be reckoned for promotion and that he is not entitled for seniority on par with his batch mates. It is further submitted that protection of seniority is one of the attendant benefits attached to continuity of service. That Lok Adalat has clearly recorded continuity of service without any back wages and attendant benefits. It is also submitted that protection of seniority being one of the attendant benefits, petitioner is not entitled for promotion on par with his batch mates. L 20t6 (2) ALD 5s2 (DB) ^\ 7 JAII J \lr.P.No.l6454 of2014

5.1 Learned counsel fo-1 lespond.ent-corporation relied on the judgment of Honble Apex eourt in civil Appeal No.7657 of 2oo4 and contended that petitioner is not entitled for attendant benefits as prayed for.

6. Heard learned counsels, perused the record. and considered the submissions.

7. It is pertinent to extract the reievant portion of the relief prayed for in the writ petition '.-.dec:laring that the action of the respond.ent^s in not allouting continuitg of seruice and senioatg h tlrc post of conductor Jrom the date of inttial appointmZnt (17-0's-1ggo) for effecting promotion to the post oj Junfor Assis tant on par tttth his batch mats bg pracing him in appropriate ptai * bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonabte ind. coitrary to the Autard dt. 2r-06-2013 in w.p.No.2o446 of 2oor Znd consequ.e-ntlg clirect the respondents to effect protmotion...,

8. Petitioner was appointed as casual conductor in respondent-corporation from 13.os. 1999, his services were regularized on 17.08.1990. He was removed from seryice on

09.06.1997 for cash and ticket irregularities. petitioner filed I.D.No.3oz of 1997 before the Labour court cha]lenging the removal. Labour court vide award, dated 2l,4.o3.Lggg , ordered as follows (Ex.p6)L_.* 8 JAK, J W.P.No.l6454 of 2014 '...to reinstate the petitioner as afresh candidate. The petitioner is not entitled to continuity of service, attendant benefrts and back u'ages."

9. Challenging the award of Labour Court, W.P.No-2O446 of 2001 was filed by petitioner. The said writ petition was referred to Lok Adalat, matter came to be settled between the parties on 21.06.2013. The following is the Lok Adalat Award: "The dispute between the parties having been referred for determination to the LOK ADALAT and the parties having compromised the case/matter, the following award is passed in terms of the settlement: 1. In furtherance of the award made in I.D.No.3O7 of L997 , dated 24.O3.L999, the petitioner is entitled for continuity of service but without any back-wages and attendant benefits. Further, the petitioner is also not entitled for any fixation of pay scale il any change in the meanwhile. His salary shdl be fixed in the appropriate scale w.e.f. 1. 1.2O 13.

2. The parties are informed that the court fee, if any, paid by any of them shall be refunded. 3. No orders as to the cost of appeal." The said award is signed by petitioner and respondents.

10. The present writ petition is filed on the ground that respondent-Corporation has not acted in terms of the settlement of award passed by Lok Adafa!. This court in 9 JAK, J W.P.No.l6454 of 2014 w.P.M.P.No.2o421 of wl4 passed the following ord.er on L7.06.20L4: "Pending further orders, there shall be an direction to the respondent company to consider the representation dated 23.Og.2O13 submitted by the petitioner, keeping in view that the consent_ award passed by the Lok Adalat on 2L.O6.2O13, in much as in the said award, it has been specilically recorded that the petitioners should be given continuity of service- The respondent corporation is expected to take an appropriate decision at the earliest point of time in this regarcl." 1 1. Pursuant to interim order, dated tz.06.2oL4, proceedings, dated 23.09.2014, were issued b_y respondent_ corporation (document annexed at page nos. 9-10 of counter affidavit). The relevant portion of the proceedings is as follows: "This is a case, wherein Sri M Venkata Ranga Rao E.255O25 Conductor, Nalgcnda depot (hereinafter called "petitioner") has filed Wp No. 16454 /2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Ap seeking a direction to the respondent Corporation to cotrnt his seniority from his date of appointmerrt ie.. 17.08.1990 and promote him as Junior Assistant on par u,ith his batch mates. The Hon'ble High Court has passed interim orders o, 17.06.2or4 that "there shall be a direction to the respondent Corporatior: to consider the dt:23-og.2013 submittecl b-y the petitioner, keeping in view the conse,t award passed by the Lok Adalat on 21.0s.2o13. In as much as in - - -representation / (" I t0 JAK J W.P.No.l6454 of 2014 the said award, it has been specilically recorded that the petitioner should be given continuity of service. The respondent Corporation is expected to take an appropriate decision at the earliest point of time in this regard". Accordingly, the representation of the petitioner dt:23.08.20L3 has been considered. The petitioner in his representation stated that the Wp No.2O446/2OOI was setrled in Lok Adalat allowing continuity of service without back wages and attendant benefits. Hence, he requested to consider his candidature and select him as Junior Assistant, on par with other candidates. The Hon'ble Bench of Lok Adalat passed an award dated 17.06.2013 with the following direction. "ln furtherance of the award made in ID No.307l 1997 dt:24.O3.1999, the petitioner is entitled for continuity of service but without any back-wages and attendant benefits. Further, the petitioner is not entitled for any fixation of pay scale if any change in the meanwhile. His salary should be fixed in the appropriate scale w.e. f. 01.o1 .2o^t3'. Thus the petitioner is denied attendant benefits. Protection of seniority is of the attendant benefits attached to the benefit of continuity of service and in denied by the Hon'ble Court. When the petitioner is not entitled for protection of his seniority, he cannot claim promotion on par with his batch mates. The Hon'ble Court through award dt: 17.06.2013 has clearly held that the petitioner is also not entitled for any fixation of pay scale if any change in the meanwhile. Thus the continuity of service granted by the Hon'ble Court can be JAK, J W.P.No.l5454 of2014 reckoned only for the purpose of retirement benefits, but it cannot be reckoned for the purpose of promotion. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for protection of his seniority w.e.f. 17.08.199O on par with his batch mates. For the above said reasons, Sri M Venkata Ranga Rao 8.255025 Conductor of Nalgonda depot was not offered promotion as Junior Assistant, on par with his batch mates. These proceedings are issued in compliance of interim orders of Hon'ble High Court dt: i7.O€i.2O14 in WP No. 1645412014." L2. On a perusal of the proceedings, dated 23.09.2014, it is observed that respondent-Corporation was of the opinion that protection of seniority is one of the attendant benefits attached to continuity of service and that petitioner is not entifled for protection of his seniority with effect from

17.08.1990 on par with his batch mates. It further opined that continuity of service can be reckoned only for the purpose of retirement benefits and cannot be reckoned for promotion.

13. Pursuant to Lok Adalat arvard, petitioner'sr salaq/ was fixed in the scale w.e.f. 01.01.2013. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that petitioner should have been given f f l2 JAK, J W.P.No.l6454 of20l4 continuity of service with seniority in the post of conductor from initial appointment arrd to effect promotion to the post of Junior Assistant on par with his batch mates and such other benefits.

14. The Lok Adalat award categorically states that petitioner is not entitled for any back wages and attendant benefrts. If any other relief was agreed for, the same would have been reflected in the terms of settlement of award itself. "Continuitg of seruice uithaut back uages and attendant benefits" would mean that petitioner is to be reinstated into service granting continuity of service, nothing else. It defies the logic of this Court as to how petitioner's case can be considered for attendant benefits as sought for. In other words, petitioner is seeking a direction from this Court to ignore the terms of Lok Adalat award.

15. l.earned counsel for petitigner placed reliance on the judgment in Md. tt. Mahaboobnagar and other* and contended that it is 2 20t6 (21 ALD 549 l3 JAI( J W.P.No.16454 of 2Ol4 applicable to the facts of ease in this writ petition and squarely covers the issue.

15. Learned counsel for respondents placed reliance on paragraph No.14 of the Apex Court in V.V.G. Red.dg a. APsR?ca, and contended that petitioner is not entitled for any benefits as sought for. Further reliance is placed on the Judgment of APSRTC qnd. Others u. s. -l\Iarsagoud4 for the said proposition. i7. Reiiance is placecl by respondent counsei on j.K. Sgnthetlcs Ltd. a. K,P. Agarwal and otherss, but, said case is referred in the judgment of Apex court in Deepali Qundu Suruqse a. Krantl Junior Ad.hgapak Mahavidgalaga (D.DD.) and other*, the judgment of a learned Single Judge in w.P.No.6973 of 2oo5 is also brought to the notice of this court for consideration. 3 AIR 2009 SC 1654 { 2003 (31 Arc 644 ' 2007 (5) ALT 5 (SC) u rzotsl 10 scc 324 t4 JAK, J W.P.No.l6454 of2014

18. The Honble Apex Court after considering a catena of decisions in Deepali Gundu Surwase (6 supra) held as follows: "22.T}:.e very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer. The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terrninated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an order which has the effect of severing the employer-employee relationship, the latter's source of income gets dried up. Not only the employee concerned, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by a finding of the competent judicial/quasi- judicial body or court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specilically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was l5 JAK, J W.P.No.l6454 of 2014 , getting the seme emoluments. The denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the employee concerned and rewarding the employer by relieving him of tJle obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments." 38. The propositions which can be cu[ed out from the aforementioned judgments are: 38. 1. In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement -*ith continuit5r of service ar-rd back wages is the normal rule. 38-2. The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the adju,licating authoritv or the court may take into consideration the iength oi service oi the empioyeeTu'orkrnan, the nieture oi misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/workman, the financial condition of the employ'er and similar other factors. 38.3. C)rdinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a sta,tement before the adjudicating authority or the court of Iirst instance that he/she was not gainfull.y employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then it has to pleacl a-nd also lead cogent evidence to prove that the emplo-vee/ workmsrn was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she rvas drawing prior to the termination of service-lfhis is so because it is settled law that the burden of proof of the-existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averment ,,-- .. f r' ; I t6 JAK J W.P.No.l6454 of2014 about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to specilically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments. 38.4. The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal exercises power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even though the enquiry held against the employee/workman is consistent with the rules of natural justice and/or certified standing orders, if any, but holds that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct found proved, then it will have the discretion not to award full back wages. However, if the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the employee or workman is not at all guilty of any misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false charge, then there will be ample justifrcation for award of full back wages. 38.5. The cases in which the competent court or tribunal Iinds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimising tJ e employee or workman, then the court or tribunal concerned u"ill be fully justilied in directing pa5rment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior courts should not exercise power under Arncte 226 or 136 of the Constitution and interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court, etc. merely because there i" ,.fr ,possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer's obligation to pay the t7 JAK, J \t'.P.No,16454 of2014 same. The courts muat.always keep in view tl at in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and the sufferer is the emplovee/workman and there is no justification to give a premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by r.elieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages. 38.6. In a number of cases, the superior courts have interfered with tJ:e award of the primary adjudicatory authority on the premise that frnalisation of litigation has taken iong time ignoring that in majority of cases tjte parties are not responsible for such delays. Lack of infrastructure and m€rnpower is the principal cause for delay in the disposal of cases. For this the litigants cannot be blamed cr penalised. It r,.rould amount tc grave rnjustrce to an employee or *,orkman if he is denied back wages simply because there is long lapse of time between the termination of his service a,d finality given to the order of, reinstatement. The courts should bear in mind that in most of these cases, the employer is in an advantageous position vis-A-vis the employee or workman. He can avail the ser'ices of best legal brain for prolonging the agony of the sufferer i.e. the employee or workman, who can ill-afford the luxury of spending money on a lawyer rvith certain arnount of fame. Therefore, in such cases it would be prudent to adopt the course suggested in Hindustan Tin Works (p) I_td. v. Employees t|g7gl2 SCC 8Ol. 38.7. Ttre observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.p. Agrawal l(2OO7l 2 SCC 433]-that on.reinstatement the er'-rployeei workman cannot clar-m-corltinuity of senrice as of right is contrar5r to the ratio of the judgments of three_ .f l" 18 JAK J W.P.No.l6454 of 2Ol4 Judge Benches referred to hereinabove [Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. (supra) and Surendra Kumar Verma (supra)l and cannot be treated as good law. This part of the judgment is also against the very concept of reinstatement of an employee/workman."

19. Section 2L of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 reads as under: "21. Award of Lok Adalat - (1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, an order of any other court and where a compromise or setflement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub- section(li of section 20, thle court-fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court-fees Act, 1870. (2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award."

20. The Apex Court, while dealing with the issue of challenge to a Lok Adalat Award in Jalour Singh and. Others a. State of htnJahz, l:reild as follows: "12. Itis trere that where an award it/maae by Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties, (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the l,ok Adalat), it becomes frnal and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make 7 AIR 2008 SC 1209 l9 JAK, J U .P.No.l6454 of20l4 payment if it agrees to the order, or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on meriis, if it dr:es not agree, is not an award of the lak Adalat. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 9o": l9t arise. As already noticed, in such a situatior, the High Court ought to have heard and disposecl of the appeal on merits."

21. On a perusal of aforesaid Section and the law declared by the apex court, it is evident that once a Lok Adalat award is oassed, it is binding on both the parties, the said award is final and can be challenged by way of writ petition that too on very limited grounds.

22. Reliance is placed on ttvo circulars issueC by the respondent authorities i.e., Circular No.pD-04/2020, dated

26.06.2020. The following are the instructions issued for payment of gratuity to the employees of TSRTC: "lnstrur:tions were issued vide reference cited on treating the penod of suspension or suspension followed by removal lor the purpose of Gratuity as under: l, Wh-e1 the period of absence by suspension or suspension followed by removal is treated eitirer wholly or partly as "ON DUTy", the authority competent to inake an reinstatement has to specifically make a mention for what purpose or purposes the period, so treated, shall count for duty. Like-wise, in case of ,NOT ON DUTY" there must be a specific directive as to the purpose or purposes to which the period so treated as ,Ubf ON DUTY' Counts for. 2. In the absence of any specific mention as to thc effect pcriod so treated as ,'NOT ON DUTY,, it shall not be counted for the purpose of Increments and leave only. It shall also be confined only to the period that rv." t "it"d as "NOT ON DUTY". That is to say, the actual period, on f 20 JAK, J W.P.No.l6454 of 2014 and from the date of suspension and up to the date of reinstatement, by terminating the suspension or in consideration of an appeat, as the case may be, shall alone be taken for this purpose. This will not affect seniority, continuiqr of service and Gratuity. Thus there are clear Instructions to issue reinstatement orders speci$ring whether the period for which the employee was out of service has to be reckoned for the purpose of Gratuity, seniorit5r etc. But the orders issued in several cases simply state that "the period from the date of suspension till the date of reinstatement is treated as "not on dut5r" for all pulposes. Instances have come to notice that the removed employees reinstated after several years by the appellate authorities are claiming Gratuity for the removal period relying on Circular No. PD-L4/l9TT-28, dated os.05.7977. The issue has been re-examined keeping in view the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, l9Z2 and the following revised Instructions are issued for compliance. 1. If the reinstatement order issued by the departmental authorities/Hon'ble Courts specifically mention regarding treatment of tl e period of out of service for different purposes such as Gratuity, seniority, Increments, leave etc, the period has to be treated accordingly.

2. lf an ernployee is reinstated treating the period of suspension and removal as "Not on Dut5l" or "Not on Duty for atl purposes" ether by the departmental authorities or by the Hon'ble Courts, it shatl be treated as break in service and the said period shall not be reckoned for the purpose of Gratuit5r, seniority, leave and lncrements.

3. If an ernployee is reinstated with "continuit5r of service" either by the departmental authorities or by the Hon'ble Courts, the period for which the employee remained out of service has; to be reckoned for the purpose of Gratuity. j,Y ' -

4. If an ernployee 6 i6instated "without continuity of service", ether by the departmental authorities or by the Hon'ble courts, ttre period for which the employee remained out of seryice shall not be reckoned for the purpose of Gratuity, 5. tf an employee is reinstated by treating the period of suspension or suspension followed by removal as "ON DUTY" by ttre Appellate authorities/Hon'ble Courts, the period shall be reckoned for Gratuity. 2t JAK, J W.P.No.l6454 of 2014 ending cases if any, shall be disposed as per odified guidelines." is placed on Circular No. PD - I 4 / lg7 7 -7 8 , dated 05.05.ly77 which reads as under: "In para 6 of the Circular l"t referred to above, it is clarified that "when the period of suspension is treetted as "NOT ON DUTY" the employee will not admissible to any pay and allowance for the period excepting subsistence allowance already paid. This period will not also count for any benefits of service".

2. In para 8 of the subsequent Circular 2nd cited, it was f,urther ciarihed, inter-aiia, rhat "when the period of absence is treated as "NOT-ON-DUTY" the period will constitute a break in service for all purposes.

3. Units have raise some doubts while seeking clarifications as to the effect of suspension period treated as "Not on Duty" on the service of the employee, especially in the case of Gratuity.

4. The rnatter has been examined in detai! with reference to regulations in force and the procedure obtaining in the Government in terms of F.R. - 54 as amended and also according to the legal opinion and the following clarifications are issued. 5. When an employee, who has been suspended, is reinstated by termination or suspension or setting aside the orders for of dismissal or removal by the competent authority or by a Court of Law, as the case may be, the period of suspension the suspension followed by removal or dismissal, i.e. to be treated as "ON DUTY, or "LEAVE DUE " or " NOT ON DUTY", as the case may be depending upon the merits and de-merits of the individual case concerned. When the period of absence by suspension or suspension followed by removal is treated either wholly or partly as " ON DUTY the authority cornpetent to make an order for reinstatement has to specific4ly make a mention for what purpose or purposes the period, so treated, shall count for duty. Like-wise, in case of ,.NOT ON DUTY" there must be a specific directive 33 to the purpose or purposes to which the period so treated as "NOT ON DUTY" counted for. in the absence of any specific mention as to the effect of the period so treated as "NOT ON DUTY" it shall not be counted for the purpose of Increments and l,eave only. It shall also be counted only to the period

6. t / 22 JAIi, J W.P.No.l6454 of2014 that was treated as " NOT ON DUTY', That is to say, the actual period, on and from the date of suspension and upto the date of reinstatement, by terminating the suspension or in consideration of an appeal, as thJ case may be, shall alone be taken for this purpose. This will not aJfect senioritSr, continuity of service and Gratuit5r. But in the case of " ON DUTY" the entire period will be counted for all benefits of service, if there is no specific mention as to the purpose or purposes the period so treated "ON DUTY" counts for. 7. T}l.e instructions contained in the Circulars, referred to above, are deemed to have been modified to the extent indicated above with retrospective effect from the dates of the circulars. It is also hereby ordered that in all cases in which so far orders have been issued by any co- petent authority to treat any period as "NOT ON DUTY" without specifrcally mentioning the purpose (s) for -been which it is to be so treated, be deemed to have disposed off treating the period as "NOT ON DUTY" only for the purpose of increments and leave.

8. All the Unit/Controlling Oflicers under whom the employees alfected by the modification may take-up all such cases and adjust the periods actordingly. Arrears of payment, if any, may be drawn and paid, duly pre-audited. This order also waives the period of delay for drawal of arrears to a-ffected employees.

9. In future, the disciplinary authority/appellate authority should follow the instructions contained in this Circular scrupulously, and give no room for complaints or representations from the ernployees regarding the treatment of the period of absence, during suspension/ removal/ dismissal and on reinstatement. "

24. Placing reliance on the circulars, learned counsel contended that petitioner is . entifled for the benefits. Attention of.r.hi: Court is drawn to paragraph Nos.2,3 and,4 of circular of 1977. Further drawing attention to circular of 2o2o contention is put forth that circulars of lgTT and // Z) JAK J W.P.No.l6454 of2014 2O2O are applicable to the case of petitioner and respondents failed to implement in the case of petitioner.

25. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents invited the attention of this Court to Paragraph Nos.S and 6 of Circular L977 and contended that it is only in certain conditions as enumerated in Clause - V of the Circular, petitioner is eligible for the benefits as prayed for.

26. Reliance placed on the circulars of 1977 eurd 2O2O is misconceived. Contention that petitioner's case has to be considered in the light of the circulars, if accepted, the terms of settlement of Lok Adalat ar,vard stand diluted. No dilution of terms of settlement of Lok Adaiat award is conceivable as they are binding on both parties;. Petitioner and respondent-Corporation are signatories to award. Contentions advanced on behalf of petitioner are based on sandy foundations and are devoid of merits. Judgments relied are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

27. An employee is entitted for benefits lawfully during his/her regular, continuous, unbroken service/ / / 24 JAK, J W.P.No.l6454 of 2014 employment, be it financial, non-Iinancial, such as: increments, allowances, promotion(s), seniority-based advancements, pay scale, leave, gratuity, pension, pensionarSr benefits, retirement-related dues etc. As per terms of settlement of Lok Adalat award, continuitg of seruice is utithout ang back wages and attendant benefits. Petitioner is seeking benefits over and above the terms of settlement of Lok Adalat award. No indulgence over and above the terms of settlemeut of Lok Adalat Award can be shorvn. It is evident from the terms of award that continuity of service is without any attendant benefits.

28. If relief as prayed for is granted, this court would be re-writing the terms of settlement of Lok Adalat award, which is contrar5r to law. For reasons aforesaid, petitioner is 1 \ not entitted for any attendant benefits as prayed for. In the petitioner's case continuity of service (wtthout attendant benefitsl is to be reckoned as continuous service only for the purposes of retirement benefits, any other inference would be contrary to terms of settlement of Lok Adalat Award. 25 JAK r W.P.No.l6454 of20t4 ,, 1 29- Having considered the entire factual matrix of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that interests of justice would be met, if respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of petitioner strictly in terms of Lok Adalat award ancr as held supra. Authori.ty to issue appropriate proceedings within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this ordr:r, reckoning continuity of service for the purposes of retirements benefits only. Petitioner is at liberty to makc a representation to the corrcerned authority. 30 with the above observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneorls petitions, if any, pending, sharl stand. closed. Sd/.A.H,S.GOWRI ASS ANT //TRUE COPYII / One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble SRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI (For His Lordships kind perusal) SECTION OFFICER To, Affairs, New Delhi. Buildings, Hyderabad

1. 11 LR C*qpies 2. The Undcii Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and eompany 3. lhe Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High--Cout 4. The vide-chairman & Managing Director, The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State. S I-ng Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Nal$ohda Region, at Nalgonda, Nalgonda District, Telangaha State. O. Lng Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transp-ort Corporation, Nalgonda Bus Depot, Nalgonda District, Telangana State. 7. One CC to SRI P. VENI'\ATESWAR RAO, Advocate IOPUCI 8. One CC to SRt NiZAMPUR CHANDRA SEKHAR, SC FOR TSRTC tOpUCI 9. Two CD Copies BN 4w HIGH COURT DATED:0810112025 =i WP.No.16454 o12014 a ? ) l_) i) 02t:C .-a-".::' :. ,..-.. \ ',-,\. i\ 2025 :,:i o: .;n,,;g.a{: {'t I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\ \x