1 HN, J W.P.No.1294_2014 APHC010355092014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 1294/2014 Between: 1. AKKALA YEDUKONDALA REDDY,, S/O. KOTI REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RTC DRIVER, R/O. PITTALAVANIPALEM, GUNTUR DIANA. 2. AKKALA LEELAMMA,, W/O.LATE AKKALA YEDUKONDALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, VINAY ASHRAMAM, KAVVUR VILLAGE, CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. PETITIONER NO.2 BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LR TO THE DECEASED 1ST PETITIONER, AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 31.03.2026 VIDE I.A.NO.1 OF 2026 IN WP NO.1294 OF 2014. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, BAPATLA DEPOT, BAPATLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER APSRTC GUNTUR, - 3. THE LABOUR COURT REP BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER GUNTUR, - 4. AKKALA LEELAMMA W/O LATE AKKALA YEDUKONDALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, VINAY ASHRAMAM, KAVVUR VILLAGE, CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. PETITIONER NO.2 BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LR TO THE DECEASED 1ST PETITIONER, AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 31.03.2026 VIDE I.A.NO.1 OF 2026 IN WP NO.1294 OF 2014. 2 HN, J W.P.No.1294_2014 ...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 any appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Award dated 12-05-2013 in I.D. No. 118 of 2006 on the file of the 3rd respondent Court, Guntur in so far it relates to denial of back wages with interest @ 12% per annum and costs of the proceedings only as arbitrary and violative of Art.14 and 21 of the Constitution of India provisions of LD. Act and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to pay back wages with interest @ 12% per annum, grant costs of the proceedings throughout and to pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 1510 OF 2014 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 1 and 2 to fix petitioner's pay in revised scales that were effected from 1999 to 2013 by duly taking to consideration annual increments and all consequential benefits and direct the respondents I and 2 to pay the same with arrears with interest @ 12 p.a. immediately and pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 May be pleased to bring the proposed 2nd petitioner on record as the legal Representative of the 1 petitioner in W.P.No.1294 of 2014 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LABOUR 2. P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC 3 HN, J W.P.No.1294_2014 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of back wages by the Labour Court in the I.D filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was engaged as a driver and was initially appointed as a casual driver in the year 1996. Thereafter, his services were regularized. However, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 26.02.1999 retiring the petitioner on medical grounds. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, at the time of recruitment, the respondents conducted a medical examination and, after finding the petitioner medically fit for the post of driver, appointed him as a driver. It is submitted that, on account of a complaint received from an anonymous person, the petitioner was referred to the Medical Board of Osmania Medical College, for conducting a medical examination, particularly with respect to the height of the petitioner, as per the then prevailing norms for qualifying to the post of driver, under which applicants were required to possess a minimum height of 166 centimeters. It is submitted that the petitioner qualified in the said medical examination, which was duly conducted by the competent Medical Board of the respondent Corporation. 3. It is further submitted that, upon receipt of a false and anonymous complaint, the respondents referred the petitioner to Osmania General Hospital for undergoing a medical examination and, on the basis of the proceedings issued by the said hospital determining the height of the petitioner as 161.5 centimeters, the impugned proceedings came to be issued. 4 HN, J W.P.No.1294_2014 The petitioner submits that the respondent authority subsequently revised the height requirements for applicants and refixed the minimum height at 160 centimeters. The said proceedings were issued in the year 2010. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner filed I.D.No.118 of 2006 before the Labour Court, Guntur, challenging the proceedings dated 26.02.1999, by which the order of retirement was passed by the 1st respondent. The Labour Court considered the case of the petitioner and partly allowed the I.D. by directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits, but without back wages. 5. It is submitted that the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court had referred the petitioner to the Medical Board of Guntur General Hospital, where a physical examination of the petitioner was conducted. It is further submitted that WW-2, the doctor who conducted the medical examination of the petitioner with respect to his height, was also examined. The said doctor issued Exhibit W-4, clearly certifying the height of the petitioner as 163 centimeters. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the only reason assigned by the Labour Court for denial of back wages for the period of 14 years from the date of termination was that the Labour Court presumed that the petitioner would have been working elsewhere. It is submitted that such presumption resulted in the denial of back wages to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been reinstated pursuant to the orders of 5 HN, J W.P.No.1294_2014 the Labour Court. It is further submitted that, during the pendency of the writ petition, the employee of the respondents passed away and the legal heir of the said employee has been brought on record. 7. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents have filed a detailed counter and that the certificate issued by the Medical Board of Osmania General Hospital, certifying the height of the petitioner as 161.5 centimeters, was duly considered. It is submitted that, as on the said date, the petitioner did not possess the required height and, therefore, the impugned proceedings came to be issued. 8. The learned Standing counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner remained silent for over a period of seven years before filing the I.D. seeking reinstatement and back wages. It is submitted that the delay on the part of the petitioner has not been explained. That apart, the claim for back wages cannot be entertained, as the petitioner was not in the service of the respondent organization and, therefore, on the principle of “no work, no pay”, the petitioner is not entitled to any back wages. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel for the respondents. 10. The short point for consideration is whether the petitioner can maintain the writ petition seeking a direction for payment of back wages and all consequential benefits for the period during which he remained out of service. 6 HN, J W.P.No.1294_2014 Admittedly, the petitioner was issued proceedings of retirement dated 26.02.1999 on the basis of an anonymous complaint received by the respondents. The respondents have admitted the receipt of the anonymous complaint in the counter affidavit and that the petitioner was referred to the Special Medical Board of Osmania General Hospital for medical examination. 11. The respondent Corporation has well-established hospitals and recognized clinics across the State. In such a scenario, there is nothing on record placed by the respondents to justify referring the petitioner to the Medical Board of Osmania General Hospital while ignoring the Medical Board of the APSRTC Hospital either at Tarnaka or at any other place in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. 12. The petitioner was kept out of service on account of the impugned proceedings dated 26.02.1999 on the pretext of receipt of an anonymous complaint. The Labour Court considered the issue in its totality and also referred the petitioner to the Medical Board of Guntur General Hospital. The certificate issued by the attending doctor categorically certified the height of petitioner as 163 centimeters. The same was considered by the Labour Court and the impugned proceedings dated 26.02.1999 were found to be illogical and irrational. Accordingly, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner. 13. Insofar as denial of the back wages to the petitioner is concerned, the Labour Court has presumed that no technically qualified person possessing 7 HN, J W.P.No.1294_2014 driving skills at a young age would remain idle for 14 years expecting reinstatement without engaging in any other work. On the basis of such presumption, the Labour Court denied back wages to the petitioner. 14. The petitioner undoubtedly approached the Labour Court after a lapse of seven years from the date of passing the orders, retiring the petitioner. The reason assigned by the respondents for holding the petitioner unfit for the post of driver, namely that he did not satisfy the prescribed height requirement, was based solely on an anonymous complaint. No explanation has been placed before this Court as to why the petitioner was referred to the Superintendent, Osmania General Hospital, for conducting the medical examination when the established hospitals of the respondent Corporation were available for such purpose. That apart, the recognized and established hospital of the respondent Corporation had earlier conducted a medical examination of the petitioner at the time of recruitment and had found him fit for the post of driver. 15. The petitioner has also not furnished any satisfactory explanation with regard to the delay in approaching the Labour Court. Therefore, granting back wages from the date of the impugned proceedings dated 26.02.1999 till the date of approaching the Labour Court would not be permissible on account of the laxity exhibited by the petitioner. However, the award passed on the presumption that the petitioner was engaged elsewhere, without any supporting basis, cannot be sustained. 8 HN, J W.P.No.1294_2014 16. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be entitled to back wages from the date of filing of the I.D till the date he has been reinstated. The grant of back wages is justified on the ground that the respondents passing the order of retirement without referring the petitioner to the Medical Board of the respondent Corporation Hospital. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits, including provident fund and other attendant service benefits. 17. The respondents shall calculate the amount due payable to the petitioner's husband in lieu of the service of the petitioner's husband within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:16.04.2026 NKA 9 HN, J W.P.No.1294_2014 180 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 1294 of 2014 Date: 16.04.2026 NKA