Andhra Pradesh High Court · 1998
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
This writ petition is disposed of in terms of and in accordance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the respondents herein not to deduct any amount from the petitioner's Salary which deductions was effected from January, 1998 to the end of February, 1998 and to direct the respondents to repay the entire deducted amount to the petitioner immediately by restoring the services of petitioner as Grade-I, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.PALLENAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following Order: The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to the respondents not to deduct any amount from the petitioners’ salary and to direct the respondents to repay the deducted amount.
The petitioners, two in number, were appointed on 11-01-1997 and 11-08-1975 respectively. They were promoted as Drivers Grade-I in the year 1992 and were transferred in the year 1993 from Khammam to Nalgonda. On their transfer to Nalgonda division, they were treated as Drivers Grade-II and were paid salary applicable to the said post. Sri P.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would place reliance on a judgment of this Court, in W.P.No.33313 of 1998 dated 29-12-1998, to contend that, in similar circumstances, this Court held that in the absence of a specific order of demotion or revision even if transferred at the request of an employee, he cannot be denied salary for the post which he held hitherto. Smt B.G.Uma Devi, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation, would, on the other hand, rely on the office order dated 22-03-1993 to contend the petitioners were transferred from Nalgonda to Khammam at their request and that the transfer order itself reflects that they were reckoned in the category of Drivers Grade-II. A perusal of the office order dated 22-03-1993 shows that six drivers were transferred at their request, that the first petitioner, Sk.Imam was shown at Sl.No.1, the second petitioner, Md.Osman, at Sl.No.5 and that the petitioner in W.P.No.33313 of 1998 at Sl.No.4.
Operative part
This Court, by order in W.P.No.33313 of 1998 dated 29-12-1998, specifically held that in the absence of an order of demotion or reversion, their pay scale cannot be revised to their detriment and the amounts deducted towards excess payment shall be refunded. It is conceded that the order in W.P.No.33313 of 1998 has attained finality on the Corporation not having chosen to challenge the said order by way of appeal. That being so, the petitioner in W.P.No.33313 of 1998 and the petitioners herein, who were transferred by way of the very same office order dated 22-03- 1993, cannot be treated differently and the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.33313 of 1998 dated 29-12-1998 would also enure to their benefit. This writ petition is disposed of in terms of and in accordance with the orders of this Court in W.P.No.33313 of 1998 dated 29-12-
1998. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ______________ 19-03-2008 To 1 The Manager Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nalgonda, A.P. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kodad, Nalgonda District. 4 Two CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: This writ petition is disposed of in terms of and in accordance
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 29 Dec 1998. The bench was RAMESH RANGANATHAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.