APHC010659062013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 11630/2013 Between: 1. P.LAXMANA RAO, C-965261, CONT. DRIVER, S/O. VENKATRAO,, R/O. RAVULAPALAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE A P S R T C REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD. 2. THE REGIONAL MANAGER A P S R T C EAST, GODAVARI REGION, AT RAJAHMUNDRY, E.G. DIST 3. THE DEPOT MANAGER A P S R T C, RAVULAPALEM DEPOT, EAST GODAVARI DIST. ...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 to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner vide Proc: P1/1(21)07-RVPM, Dt 24-2-2007 without holding any enquiry, which was modified by the 2nd respondent by ordering reinstatement as a Fresh Conductor by denying past service and benefits to the petitioner vide Proc. No: PA/20 (76)/2010-RM-EG, Dt 24-3-2011 as high handed and arbitrary action, contrary to APSRTC Regulations, contrary to the circular instructions, violative of Article 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution of India, and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential 2 direction to the respondents to extend all the benefits on par with the colleagues of the petitioner including regularization forthwith IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 14403 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 regularize the services of the petitioner on par with his colleagues forthwith pending disposal of the Writ Petition IA NO: 4 OF 2013(WPMP 131316 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S M SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K SRINIVASA PRASAD SC For APSRTC The Court made the following: 3 Order:- The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of service benefits rendered by the petitioner prior to the termination and re-engagement of the petitioner. The petitioner was terminated vide proceedings dated 24.02.2007 and the punishment of removal was modified by the 2nd respondent by directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as a fresh Conductor by continuing past service. 2. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.1280 of 2012 and batch, had considered a similar issue and passed several directions, including directing the respondents to count the period of service and treat the same as continuity of service from the date of termination to the date of re-engagement. Following the same, the writ petitions were disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s past service as continuity of service for the purpose of terminal benefits due and payable to the petitioner at the time of attaining the age of superannuation. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was removed on account of his own fault, as he was unauthorizedly absent from 26.12.2006 to 21.02.2007. It is submitted that when the petitioner was charged with unauthorized absence, appropriate action was taken against him by the disciplinary authority. However, the appellate authority modified the punishment. 4 4. Considering the case of the petitioner, the appellate authority reinstated him. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to grant of continuity of service for the period during which he was not in service. 5. Heard. Perused the record. 6. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.1280 of 2012 and batch, passed various directions, which read as follows:- (1) In cases where the appellate/revisional authority has directed re-engagement of the contract employees as fresh employees, such employees shall be entitled to benefit of continuity of service from the date of termination till the date of re- engagement, except for the period during which they were absent, and the said continuity of service granted to the employees shall be without any monetary benefit and shall be counted only for the purpose of regularization at a future date. (2) The continuity of service so ordered in para (1) shall not, however, be counted for the purpose of seniority and shall not be allowed to affect the seniority of regularly working employees or for other benefits, but shall be counted only for the purpose of considering their cases for regularization. (3) There are also cases where the orders of termination are challenged, either before the appellate/revisional authorities or before this Court, after six or seven years of date of termination. In all such cases the benefit of continuity of service without any 5 monetary benefit and re-engagement so ordered in para (1) shall be available to only to such of those employees who have approached the appellate/revisional authorities or this court within three years from the date of termination. (4) In cases where appeals/revisions or writ petitions are filed after three years of the orders of termination, it is directed that such petitioner/s shall be considered for the engagement as fresh contract employee/s, subject to medical fitness and other formalities, but he/they shall not be entitled to continuity of past service as under para (1) above. (5) In cases where contract employees have preferred appeals/revisions, but no orders have been passed therein, the appellate/revisional authorities shall entertain and dispose of those appeals/revisions in the light of the directions referred to above, preferably on or before 31st March, 2012. (6) In cases where no enquiry was conducted, the respondent- Corporation shall be free to conduct enquiry as per law into the allegations of unauthorized absence of its employees from duty or other allegations of misconduct. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the petitioner had filed the appeal with a delay of three (03) years. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal/review provisions were introduced only after the directions issued by this Court in the batch of 6 writ petitions and, considering all these issues, the Hon’ble Division Bench issued various directions in W.A.No.1280 of 2012 and batch. 8. Considering the same, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the period during which the petitioner was not in service, i.e., from 24.02.2007 to 24.03.2011, as in service for notional benefits only. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any past monetary benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 03.02.2026 PNS