Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2013 DAILYLAW 1249 (AP)

R. Suresh, v. APSRTC,

WP/37808/2013 · 2026-04-07

Harinath N

body2013

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010369312013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 37808/2013 Between: 1.R. SURESH,, S/O. LATE KRISHAIAH, AGED 49 YEARS, OCC: CONDUCTOR, E. NO. 506920, R/O. VAKADU, S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.APSRTC, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BUS BHAVAN, RTC 'X' ROAD, HYDERABAD. 2.THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, NELLORE REGION, NELLORE. 3.THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, BUS DEPOT, VAKADU, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition 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 toto issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI, quash the impugned order of dismissal from service issued in Proc. No. M1/118(3)/2006-VKD, dated 18.04.2008 and also the Proc. of 2ncl respondent No. E5/255((Apl.1)/2009-RM(NLR), dated 24.06.2009 in so far as not granting the continuity of service, attendant benefits and back wages as arbitrary, unjust, and in violation of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently the petitioner pray this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to treat the fresh conductor as that of reinstatement with continuity of service, attendant benefits, back wages along with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play. IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 47045 OF 2013 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 corresponding basic pay on the basic pay drawn at the time of dismissal from service dated 18.04.2008 pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.V NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.ARUN KUMAR LATHKER(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.37808 OF 2013 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is challenging the orders passed by the respondent No.2 to the extent of directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner afresh. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the respondent organization in the month of September, 1989. The services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from 01.08.1990. Thereafter, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 18.04.2008 as the petitioner contested the Grama Panchayat election as a ward member, and was elected member of the Ward. The suppression of his participation in the election was viewed seriously by the respondents and an inquiry was conducted and the disciplinary authority passed the orders of removal from service. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected. However, the revision filed before the 2nd respondent was allowed in-part by directing the respondents to reappoint the petitioner afresh as a conductor. It is stated that on account of the said order appointing the petitioner afresh the petitioner has lost almost 20 years of service. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has challenged the order of the 2nd respondent for a period of more than five years and that the petitioner has also attained the age of superannuation by now and the respondent corporation has settled all the service benefits due payable to him. Considering the submissions, no further orders are required. The petition deserves to be 3 closed as the petitioner has not approached the Industrial Tribunal- Cum-Labor Court which would have addressed the issue of the petitioner on merits by going into the facts placed before the Tribunal. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 08.04.2026 KGM 4 64 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.37808 of 2013 Dated 08.04.2026 KGM