P a g e | 1 Date of reserved for orders : 07.08.2026 Date of pronouncement : 19.08.2026 Date of uploading :25.08.2026 APHC010619722023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 19th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 32033 OF 2023 Between: 1. G SAILAJA, W/o Pvs Ravi RPrasad Aged about. 53 years, occ.conductor,APSRTC, D.No. 23/10/13/1, Purushothavam Street, satyanarayanapurarn,Vijayawada, Krishna Dist.AP ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, Rep.. by its Chief Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport Corporation APSRTC, Secreteriet,Nelapadu, Guntur Dist.AP 2. The Chairman, Addl Industrial Tribunal cum Addd.1Labour Court, Hyderabad -TG 3. The Regional Manager, APSRTC Complex Pandit Nehru Bus station, Krishna Lanka, vijayawada, Krishna Dist AP ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: D SATYAVATHI Counsel for the Respondents: P VENKATA RAO SC For APSRTC Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR SERVICES II P a g e | 2 The Court made the following order: P a g e | 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 32033 OF 2023 O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed against the order dated 06.04.2015 passed in I.D.No.34 of 2011 on the file of learned Additional Industrial Tribunal – cum – Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. 3. The brief facts of the case are that: Petitioner was appointed as a casual conductor in the year 1998 in the East Godavari District in the Respondent - Corporation. Thereafter, she was transferred to Hyderabad City region in the year 2008. While so, on 25.02.2009, when she was performing her duties on route 10-K/S (Alwyn Colony to Secunderabad Station), a check was conducted at stage No.1 (Secunderabad) and a charge memo was issued on the spot levelling a single charge of cash and ticket irregularity of Rs.3/- denomination to a batch of two passengers. The petitioner denied the said charge by submitting her explanation. However, not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, respondents ordered for enquiry. Pursuant to the enquiry, she was removed from service vide proceedings dated 04.07.2011. P a g e | 4 4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Divisional Manager. The said appeal was rejected by proceedings dated 31.07.2009. Thereafter, she filed a review petition to the Regional Manager, Secunderabad and the same was rejected on 24.03.2010. Finally, she preferred a petition before the Industrial Tribunal, under section 2A(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, seeking to set aside the termination proceedings and also for a direction to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service with all consequential service benefits, attendant benefits including full back wages. 5. The Industrial Tribunal, after considering the case of the petitioner passed an order dated 06.04.2015 in I.D.No.34 of 2011. The operative portion of the order reads as under: “In the result, punishment of removal by order dated 04.07.2009 is confirmed but however the petitioner shall be taken into service as a Fresh appointment without any benefits of back wages and continuity of service and other benefits which appointment will be completely as Fresh appointment.” Accordingly, pursuant to the directions passed by Industrial Tribunal, petitioner joined into service. However, it is stated in her affidavit that the respondents have reappointed the petitioner as per Labour Court’s judgment in the above said ID, as was confirmed by publication in G.O.Rt.No.242, dated 22.05.2015, and subsequently her services were regularised on 15.03.2019. 6. While the things stood thus, petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition nearly after eight years after the award of the Industrial P a g e | 5 Tribunal challenging to the extent of not considering her service from her initial date of appointment and directing her appointment as fresh appointment. There is no explanation as to what prevented her from challenging the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal and no grounds worth considering were raised in the petition for considering her case for reinstatement with all back wages and continuity of service. 7. The petitioner, having been satisfied with the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in the year 2015, had joined the service. Thereafter her services were regularised in the year 2019. Having accepted and acted upon the said award, petitioner cannot now be permitted to challenge the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, whereby the punishment of termination was modified and her reinstatement was ordered with a specific direction to the respondent-Corporation to appoint her as a fresh candidate. 8. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. 9. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 19.08.2026 Dvs P a g e | 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 32033 OF 2023 Date: 19.08.2026 Dvs