THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WRIT PETITION No.15332 of 2014 Date: 05.06.2014 Between :
K. Srinivasa Rao .. Petitioner and The A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WRIT PETITION No.15332 of 2014 ORAL ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation, apart from perusing the record.
Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself.
Shorn of extraneous particulars, the facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed on 16.04.2010 in the respondent-Corporation as a contract conductor. Later, in course of time, on 29.12.2010, the petitioner was charge sheeted on the ground of cash and ticket irregularities. Though disciplinary proceedings were initiated, since the petitioner did not participate, the proceedings were conducted ex parte and eventually, an order of termination was passed by the disciplinary authority on 15.10.2011. When intra-departmental appeal was filed assailing the order of termination passed by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority through order dated 13.01.2012 directed reinstatement of the petitioner as a fresh conductor by denying the past service. Under those circumstances, making a grievance that, since the petitioner has been appointed as a fresh conductor, his entire past service has been wiped off and thereby, his regularisation has also been denied, the petitioner has approached this Court.
Sri S.M.Subhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that not only in the present instance but in many other cases on earlier occasions, involving many other contract workmen, be it drivers or conductors, either no enquiry was conducted by the authorities concerned or only a perfunctory enquiry was conducted, and invariably, the punishment of termination of service was imposed. Under those circumstances, when the appellate authority or revisional authority re-engaged the workmen afresh, all the affected persons thereby filed a batch of writ petitions, which eventually came to be disposed of by a learned Single Judge through a common order dated 01.03.2012 in W.P.No.4074 of 2012 and batch. In fact, the learned Single Judge, on a thorough consideration of the issues, in the said common order issued certain guidelines as to the manner of re- engagement of the workmen and also concerning their regularisation. Accordingly, the learned counsel contends that though the said judgment has been tested before the Division Bench and subsequently before the Supreme Court by the respondent- Corporation, at both stages the judgment of the learned Single Judge has been affirmed. Accordingly, the learned counsel urges this Court to follow the ratio laid down in the said judgment and direct the authorities to take into account the petitioner’s past service for the purpose of regularising his services.
Per contra, Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation has vehemently opposed the claims and the contentions of the petitioner. In elaboration of the submissions, the learned Standing Counsel has stated that it is a clear case of cash and ticket irregularities and though the petitioner has been afforded every opportunity to participate in the enquiry, he has not chosen to do so. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was taken into account and only on appreciation of the entire material on record, eventually, the disciplinary authority has chosen to impose the punishment of termination of service, which later came to be modified by the appellate authority to that of fresh engagement, without continuity of service. The learned Standing Counsel has also stated that there is no justification on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner to harp on the issue of the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judgement in W.P.No.4074 of 2012 and batch. According to the learned Standing Counsel, in all those cases, the factual matrix is entirely different. In the alternative, he has also submitted that there has been a categorical observation in the said judgment that the regularisation shall be only at a future date. As such, the petitioner cannot take any advantage of it for the retroactive confirmation of his service, which has not been provided for in the judgment relied on by the petitioner.
The learned Standing Counsel has also brought to the notice of this Court that the second condition laid down in the judgment in reference is that any conformation of the workmen on re-engagement shall not affect the seniority of other regular workmen. Expatiating on the said issue, the learned Standing Counsel has stated that if any direction is given in favour of the petitioner at this stage, it will have the potential of affecting the seniority of other persons who have not been impleaded in the writ petition.
Indeed, the issue that has been raised in the present Writ Petition has come up and has been coming up before this Court quite often. From the record, it is evident that in the past, a batch of Writ Petitions was disposed of by a learned Single Judge initially through a judgment dated 01.03.2012 in W.P.No.4074 of 2012, and later other batches were disposed of based on the judgment dated 01.03.2012. It is further evident from the record that batches of Writ Appeals came to be filed questioning the judgment dated 01.03.2012 and those were also subsequently dismissed. Invariably, all those Writ Appeals ended in failure. Thus, finality has been imparted to the judgment of the learned Single Judge in reference.
Now, today, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 25.07.2013 in S.L.P. (Civil) No.23290 of 2013, whereby the Supreme Court dismissed the S.L.P filed questioning the judgment dated 25.04.2013 passed by this Court in W.A.No.641 of 2013, which arose out of one of the batch Writ Petitions. Under those circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that since the issue has attained finality, and that this Court may safely conclude that the guidelines given in the judgment dated 01.03.2012 shall clearly apply to the case of the petitioner as well.
Contradicting the said statement, the learned Standing Counsel, however, further stated that there have been many batches of Writ Appeals before this Court and S.L.Ps before the Supreme Court, and that the order in reference in S.L.P.No.23290 of 2013 is one single instance. As such, it cannot be stated that the matter, contended the learned Standing Counsel, has entirely attained finality and that it does not brook any interference.
Concerning the S.L.P. in question, it may be seen that it was filed by the respondent-Corporation against the judgment dated 25.04.2013 in W.A.No.641 of 2013. The said Writ Appeal was disposed of by a learned Division Bench of this Court through a common order involving other Writ Appeals as well. A perusal of the same amply reveals that the ratio laid down by the learned Single Judge has been squarely upheld by the learned Division Bench thereby dismissing the Writ Appeals.
It can be seen that W.P.No.19003 of 2012 is one of the Writ Petitions having factual similarity to the one under reference presently. In the said Writ Petition as well, the petitioner therein was charged with the misconduct of cash and ticket irregularities. On reinstatement, complaining denial of continuity of service, the petitioner therein approached this Court. At the Bar, the learned Standing Counsel addressed similar arguments as has been done today. In fact, all those contentions have been repelled by a learned Single Judge of this Court in his judgment dated 26.06.2012, wherein it has been observed:
“Though the learned standing counsel for the APSRTC seeks to draw a distinction between this case and the batch of cases on the ground that the APSRTC conducted a full- fledged enquiry in the matter, the said submission may not carry weight, inasmuch as the said aspect was also considered while passing a comprehensive order in the batch of cases. Though the APSRTC did hold an enquiry in some of the cases in the batch, the learned Judge found that the enquiry was not in keeping with the principles of natural justice. Further, it may be noticed that some of these contract conductors and drivers who were accused of cash & ticket irregularities and rash & negligent driving respectively have been re-engaged afresh by the APSRTC itself. Having granted this largesse to these contract employees, which it would normally deny to its regular conductors and drivers, it is indeed incomprehensible as to why the APSRTC is aggrieved by the benefit of continuity of service extended to these contract employees and that too, for the limited purpose of their regularization. Denial of monetary benefits and continuity of service for other purposes would be sufficient punishment to these contract employees. This Court is therefore, not impressed with the submission of the learned counsel that this case should be singled out for a different treatment.”
In fact, the judgment in W.P.No.19003 of 2012 was assailed in W.A.No.641 of 2013. Later on about 34 Writ Appeals, including the one against W.P.No.19003 of 2012, were disposed of by a learned Division Bench of this Court through a common order dated 25.04.2013. At the cost of repetition, it can be stated that apart from approving the guidelines issued by the learned Single Judge in the judgement dated 29.02.2012 in W.P.No.2786 of 2012 and batch, the learned Division Bench has also accepted the line of reasoning found in W.P.No.19003 of 2012. In fact, one of these Writ Appeals was the subject matter of S.L.P (Civil) No.23290 of 2013, which was dismissed on 25.07.2013.
In a conspectus, it can be stated that the contentions that have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner concerning the cash and ticket irregularities and also that of providing the opportunity to the petitioner to contest his claim in the disciplinary proceedings stood conclusively answered by the learned Single Judge and subsequently, affirmed by the learned Division Bench of this Court, as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Accordingly, it does not call for any fresh adjudication on the issue once again. Suffice it to say that this Court has concurrently held at both stages that the contract employees, who have been re- engaged, are entitled to have their past service counted for the limited purpose of regularisation. The same cannot be denied to the petitioner so long as he is similarly placed.
Before parting with the issue, it is essential on my part to address a specific contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel that as per the guidelines issued in judgment dated 29.02.2012 in W.P.No.2786 of 2012 and batch, the benefit is only prospective but not retrospective. In other words, the regularisation shall be given after but not any anterior period in future to the date of filing the writ petition. It is profitable to extract conditions 1 and 2 enunciated by the learned Single Judge for proper appreciation. The same are extracted here below:
(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.
I am afraid, a holistic reading of the said conditions does not indicate that any issue about the prospective or retrospective application of the principle is involved. It has simply been stated that as and when a person is entitled to regularisation after taking into account his past service, the regularisation shall be effected by ensuring that no other regular workmen is affected thereby. In my considered view, both conditions 1 and 2 are to be read conjointly together but not disjointly. It is required to be stated on my part that the petitioner is entitled to have his past service considered for the limited purpose of regularisation and at the same time, it shall be ensued by the authorities that the petitioner’s regularisation does not affect the seniority or other benefits of any other workmen, who are not juniors to him.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J Date: 05.06.2014
va