Heard Sri v. Narsimha Goud

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction, particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents for not adding the notional increments for the period from suspension till the date of reinstatement i.e., 23.04.1990 to 01.06.1995, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Cbnstitution of lndia as well as in violation of Regulations 21 of the APSRTC, C.C. and A Reg. 1967 and consequently the petitioner pray this Honble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to re-fix the pay by adding the above period increments and arrange its all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play. P. NO: 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 re-fix the pay, by adding the notional increments for the period from 20.03.1990 to 01.06.1995 pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and fair play. Counselfor the Petitioner : SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for Respondents: SRI P.SATISH KUMAR, SC FOR TGRTC The Court made the following: ORDER 1 n THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHIIIAR RAO UIRIT NO. of 2014 OEDER: This writ petition is fiIed to declare the action of the respondents for not adding the notional increments for the period from suspension till the date of reinstatement i.e., from

23.04.1990 to 01.06.1995, as illegal, arbitrary.and in violation of Art. 14, 16 & 2l of the constitution of India as well as in violation of Regulations 2L of the APSRTC, C.C. & A Reg. L96T . Consequently, direct the respondents to re-fix the pay by adding the above period increments and arrange its all consequential benefits.

2. Heard Sri V. Narsimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and sri Panakanti Satish Kumar, learned Standing counsel for TGSRTC, appearing for respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as follows: That the petitioner had joined in the respondents corporation as a conductor on 18.04. L989, after under going the due process of selection. subsequently, his services were regularized w.e.f. 01.08.1989. From the date of joining the services, he worked continuously tilt he was kept under suspension on 28.04.1990, which was ultimately ended in I I I t l i I 1 2 removal from services on 20.02.1991. Later, he preferred an appeal against the removal order and the same was rejected vide order, dated 26.08.1991. Questioning the same, he raised I.D.No. 346 of 1993 (old I.D.No. 326 of 1991) before the Labour Court - III, Hyderabad. The Labour Court passed an Award on

24.01.1995, holding that the charges against the petitioner were not proved and held that the order of removal passed against him was illegal. [n the Award, the respondents' Corporation was directed to reinstate petitioner into services with continuity and L /3,a back wages. The Award was published on 28.04.1995. In view of the above Award, the petitioner reported before

4. the depot Manager, suryapet, who had removed him from service while working under him. The 2"d respondent issued an Order, dated 17.05.1995, reinstating the petitioner into service. The petitioner was reinstated into services on 01.06.1995. Since then he was working with best of his ability without interruption. But his pay is not being lixed by giving notional increments from the suspension period from 28.04.1990 to

01.06.1995, on the ground that his reinstatement was subject to the result of the Writ Petition and the was pending. Later, the petitioner carne to know that respondents'Corporation filed W.P. No.14900 of 1995, questioning the above Award and this 3 Honble Court modified the above Award without disturbing the I charges, by deleting 1/3rd back wages.

5. The petitioner made a representation to the 3'd respondent on 29.O4.2014 and 06.05.2014 respectively, requesting to add the notional increment for the out of service period. However, the 3'd respondent has been dodging the matter on the ground that the same was forwarded to the 2"d respondent, but till date his pay is not being fixed by adding the notional increments.

6. As per the regulation 2l of the APSRTC, C.C- & A Regulation, t967, when the charges are not proved, the employee is entitled to all consequential benefits as if not suspended or removed. Despite issuing a legal notice, the respondents failed to respond, causing the petitioner a recurring loss of over five incremental benefits and thereby put to loss of more than Rs.2,OOO /- per month. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

7. The respondents did not file counter affidavit. FINDINGS OF THE COURT:

8. Petitioner is seeking addition of notional increments for the period from the date of suspension till his reinstatement i.e.

23.04 .1990 to 0 1 .06. 1995. Petitioner's services \r'ere 'ir\\ 4 '-'-t1 \ -- regularized w.e.f. 1989. While stood thus, on 28.04.1990 petitioner was kept under suspension, which was ultimately ended removal from service on 2O.O2.199L. Against the removal order, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was rejected on 26.08.1991. Against the rtjection order, petitioner preferred ID No.346 of 1993 (Old ID No.326 of 199 1) before the Labour Court-III, Hyderabad. The said Award was passed in favour of the petitioner, ordering his reinstatement with continuity of service and I / 3ra back wages for the interregnum period. But, the relief seeking by the petitioner is that not added notional increments for the period of suspension, is nowhere discussed in the entire Award.

9. After the ID, the petitioner made a representation to the 3'd respondent, dated 29.O4.2014 and on 06.05.2014 respectively requesting to add the notional increment for the out of service period. However, the 3d respondent had been dodging the matter on the ground that the same was forwarded to the 2"d respondent. As per the averments of the writ petition, no final orders were passed. Against the action of the respondents, the present Writ Petition is filed.

10. The fact remains is that, the very same Labour Court Award was challenged by the respondent No. 3 before the t 5 Division Bench of this Hon'lcle High Court vide W.P.No.149OO of

1995. After hearing the matter, Division Bench passed the following order: *Hauing perused the Auard, we feel tlnt tlnugh the Labour Court is perfectly right in ifs approach in ordeing reinstatement of tLrc petitioner into seruice, but we differ from its uiew, hauing regard to the facts and cirqtmstances of the case, in granting the relief uith continuity of seruire and with 1/3,a back wages and the same'needs to be modifted to tle one of re-instatement with continuity of seruice and without back wages. Hence, we hald that the workman is entitled for reinstatement into seruice utith continuitg of seruice and without back wages. Accordinglg, this Writ Petition is disposed of." In view of the above said direction of the Hon'ble Division Bench, once the Division Bench interfered with the Award of \ \ Labour court, and modified the same, this court is not inclined to interfere into the Award. whereas the petitioner came to know after passing the Labour court Award that there is no adding of notional increments. Then, the petitioner made representations before the authorities for adding of notional increments. For non-considering his representations, questioning the sarne, the present Writ Petition is filed. 1 1. This is a case of 2014. Till date, is no counter is filed by the respondent authorities. After lapse of several years, they , I 6 c€rnnot drag on the matter for counter. In the said circumstances, if the representations of the petitioner dated

29.04.2014 and 06.05.2O14, not considered and not passed any orders till date, the petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation to the authorities for the same relief within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such representation being made by the petitioner, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the same a:rd pass appropriate orders within a period of eights (O8) weeks therefrom in accordance with law.

12. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/.M.NAGAMANI STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER usheerabad, Hyderabad.

1. The Managing Director, APSRTC, Bus Bhavan, 2. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda Region, Nalgonda. 3. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Bus Depot, Kodad, Nalgonda Dist. 4. One CC to SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD, Advocate. [OpUC] 5. One CC to SRI P.SATISH KUMAR, SC FOR TGRTC. [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies. (A- BSK PMK HIGH COURT DATED i2811012025 ORDER WP.No.20508 of 2014 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS qilL t5 rt ':it:-,-.. 03 i:[ W t' I ,t .\] f) a--, rr; rJF1i. ,.-(-, t ,( /