1 APHC010084662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3565] MONDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT APPEAL NO: 157/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to (a) Allow the Writ Appeal and set aside the order dated may 19.12.2023 as amended on 09.01.2025 in W.P. No. 15853 of 2009 to the extent of denying back wages (b) Direct the Respondents to pay all consequential benefits, including full back wages, to me from the date of illegal removal till the date of superannuation (c) Pass Between: 1. D RAMESH, S/O. D. VENKATA RATNAM, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O H. NO. 10/475, NAGAVARAPPADU, GUDIVADA TOWN, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE APSRTC, REP. BY ITS MD AND VC, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, VIJAYAWADA REGION, PANDIT NEHRU BUS STATION VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, MACHILIPATNAM DEPOT, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. THE DEPOT MANAGER, APSRTC, AVANIGADDA DEPOT, AVANIGADDA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 dispense with the Certified Copy of the order dated 19.12.2023 passed in W.P.No.15853 of 2009 before this Hon’ble Court of Andhra Pradesh and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. AISHWARYA NAGULA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT APPEAL No.157 of 2025 JUDGMENT:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 19.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.15853 of 2009. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Perused the material available on record. 3. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in this Writ Appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition. 4. The grievance of the petitioner in W.P.No.15853 of 2009 is that he was removed from service on 31.07.2006 and the same was confirmed vide order, dated 03.11.2007 passed in Review Petition filed by the petitioner. Initially, the petitioner was appointed as conductor at Gudivada Depot on 01.07.1986 and he was placed under suspension on 19.01.2006 on the allegation that the petitioner misbehaved with the Assistant Manager, Traffic on 17.01.2006. A charge sheet has been issued on 19.01.2006 framing two (2) charges against the petitioner. Subsequently, domestic enquiry was 4 conducted on the above charges and report was submitted on 10.06.2006 holding that the charges were proved against the petitioner. On 15.07.2006, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondents passed order of removal on 31.07.2006 after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has availed the remedy of appeal and review before the competent authority. Aggrieved by the order of removal and order in review petition, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.15853 of 2009. The learned Single Judge of this Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case allowed the said Writ Petition with the following terms:- 1) The impugned proceedings, dated 31.07.2006 and the consequential proceedings, dated 16.02.2007 are hereby set aside. 2) The respondents shall consider the petitioner as on service from the date of his dismissal till the date of attainment of the age of superannuation. 3) The petitioner shall be paid all the terminal benefits duly calculating his service till the date of retirement for notional purposes. 5. While issuing the said directions, the learned Single Judge made it clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled for any back wages. But, in the order copy, the word ‘not’ was not included. Subsequently, the learned Single Judge by order, dated 09.01.2025 in I.A.No.1 of 2025, added the word ‘not’ in the order. On perusal of the same, it appears that the intention of the learned Single Judge is to make it clear that the petitioner was not entitled for any 5 back wages. Besides this, admittedly with effect from the date of termination, the petitioner was not in service. As such, by applying the principle of no work no pay he is not entitled for the wages during the period when he is not in service. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge in the order, we are satisfied that there is no irregularity or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and we are not inclined to interfere into the reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, in our considered view, this appeal fails and deserves to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND _____________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Dated: 02.03.2026 TM 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA WRIT APPEAL No.157 of 2025 Dated: 02.03.2026 TM