The High Court · 2025

Petrtion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to tssue a writ, order or dlrection more particularly one in the nature of \{rit of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not taking the petitioners service bet\/een the years 1998 to 2007 into consideration for paying monetary perks as illegat, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and consequentially direct the respondents to pay the monetary benefits to the petitioner as per statute for the services rendered by petitioner for the years between '1 998 to 2007 forthwith l.A. NO: 1OF 2015(WPMP. NO:37526 0F 2015) 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 pay the monetary benefits to the petitioner as per statute for '' the services rendered by petitioner for the years between 1998 to 2007 forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R. ANURAG (SC FOR T SRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER _-:- :r;a i.c "!* 's"a*"{/ ,'/' .// ,/ ---rff 1 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.2893O of 2O15 ORDER: This Writ Petition is hled under Atticle 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:- "... to issuc a writ, order or direction more particula-rly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not taking the petitioner's service between the years 1998 to 2OO7 into considcration for paying monetary perks as i11egal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and consequentially direct the respondents to pay the monetary benefits to the petitioncr as per statute for the services rendered by peritroner for thc years behveen 1998 to 2O07 forthwith and pass such other order or orders ..."

2. The brief facts of the case a-re that the petitioner had initially rendered her services as a Bus Conductor with Jeedimetla Depot of erstuhile APSRTC from 1998 Lo 2OO7. However, in view of her prolonged absentism from duties, she was removed from service vide order dated 70.O9.2OO7 issued by the then Depot Manager, APSRTC, Jeedimetla Depot, Hyderabad. Aggrieved thereby, she approached the Lok Ada]at Bench for Industria-l Tribunal/Labour Court Cases, Chandra Vihar Complex, M.J. Road, Nampally, Hyderabad wherein, the Lok Adaiat had passed an Award dated 07 .O3.2013 in I.D.No.139 of 2013, wherein the respondent / Management agreed to take the petitioner into service as regular Conductor a-fresh. However, had the earlier service of the petitioner during the period 1998-2007 is taken into consideration, she would 2 have been entitled for monetary benehts such as qratuity etc., but since the respondents have not considered her crrrlier service, the petitioner ir; deprived of the said monetary ben rlits. Hence, the petitionel hled thc prcsent Writ Petition.

3. Heard Mr. Challa Dhanamjaya, learned cour sel appearing for the petrtioner and Mr.R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC, appearing for respondents. Perused the rt cord.

4. Learn,:d counscl for the petitioner submits ! rirt thc petitioner had agrer:d l-or rc-instatement into Service as a lr:'slr Concluctor for the reason that shc was the only bread winnt r of her family, consisting ol two adults and rwo children; that : h e rvas living in poverty and thus, had no other option but to hecr to conditions of respondents. He states that by virtue of her re instalement as a fresh Conductor, the pelitioner is deprived of monr: ary benehts etc., which is illeqal ald arbitrary. Therefore, learned <:ritrnsel prays this Court to pilss appropriate orders in the presc ir t Writ Petition directing the rcspondcnt to pay monetary benefit:; to the petitioner as per the Statutes for the services rendered b1 her during the period 1998 to 2OO7 .

5. Per contra, learned stalding counsel for thr: respondents, by hling a counter a-fhdavit, contends that the Wri Petition is not maintainabk: as it is filed seeking benehts againsl. the Award dated _?- _ffiE.. ''_ 1r .r'" ,. 3

07.O3.2O74 in I.D.No. 139/2013 passed by the Lok-Adalat Bench for Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Cases wherein, the petitioner herself expresscd her willingness to settle the matter ald requested for fresh appointment as Conductor, for which, the respondents had readily agreed. Accordingly, the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat on 07.03.2014 and ar Award was passed for fresh appointment of the petitioner. Having settled the matter before l,ok Adalath and joined the seruice as a fresh Conductor on 05.04.2014, the petitioner cannot contend that she was imposed as alleged punishment, by takir-rg into account her service as a fresh Conductor. Therefore, learned standing counsel prays this Court to dismiss the present Writ Petition.

6. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions/ contentions urged by the respective parties. Perused the material on record.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner was removed from serrrice on IO.O9.2OO7 on the ground of her absence from duties. Aggrieved by the same, the petilioner approached the Tribunal/Labour Court vide I. D.No.139/2O 13. On a request made by both the pa-rties, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat, which inturn had passed arr Award I I on the following terms and conditions: 1) The petitioner was removed from service by al order dated 10.09.2007 passed by the Depot Manager, APSKIC, EGffi =*' \ -lrvF|ii ':.i.;'- -ii 4 Jeedinetla, Hydcrabad on the charges of Abscr t lr--sim. He ra; serL thc present lndustrial Disputes 1br t - relief of reinstatement into service with continuity of :;r rrice, ald a-11 otirer attendant benehts and full back wagcs . 2) Both partics hJed joint memo to resoh,c lr dispute beforr: Lok Adalat. 3)Lok Ada.lat Bench heard both s ( cs. The respordent/ ManaElement agreed to take the pc : ' ioner into service as Fresh Regular Conductor rnd the peritioner/ Workman agreed for the same.

8. In conrpliance with the Award passed by thr Lok Adalat, the petitioner wils issued a fresh appointment order irlted 05.O4.2014 and he hac also joined duty without any disl ute rvhatsoever. Therefore, tiris Court is of the view that the p.titioner', having accepted to -oin her duty as a fresh regular Concl rclor, by hling a joint memo l;efore thc Lok Adalat, now cannot tu -I back and seek the monetarl. benefits for the service rendered ,1.r ring 1998 arrd

2007. Theretore, this Court hnds no merit in t rr. prcsent Writ Petition and thus, it is liable to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissecl Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shi ll stzrnd closed There shall be no order as to costs. SD/- M.NAGAMANI ASI;ISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER '"' I 3:: 33 13 3I -"iP,ifl ?#1"? +'.'fSi'?JB[3i'

3. Two CD CoPies TJ 1'KS ,W,, -:-:1. t -::t;1-: ' ",@IE!:|I HIGH COURT DATED:1710712025 ': ri;,1'-.\ '/ /i -\\ ' (;. s. ORDER WP.No.28930 of 2015 tl4 0[r 2025 \'.',., \. +.\:' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 5 .LI,qv\