S.N. Gorak Nath v. The Managing Director, TSRTC and 3 others
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-12-21. S.N. Gorak Nath v. The Managing Director, TSRTC and 3 others. Read the judgment and case...
Judgment text
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original J urisdiction) N/ONDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT P ETITION NO: 23165 OF 2020 Between: S. N. Gorak Nath, S/o. Subhanji, aged about 64 years, Occ. Ex. Helper, E No 111332, R/o, 10-5- 34213, f ukaramgat', Lalaguda, Secunderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1. The lvlanaging Director, TSRTC, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. 2. The Regional lr/anager(Hyderabad Region), TSRTC, tV. G. B. S. ' 3. The Depot lVanager, TSRTC, Bus Depot, Falaknuma, Hyderabad. 4. The Depot Manager, TSRTC, B. H. E. L, Bus Depot, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad. . ,.
RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Courl may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in lhe nature of wRIT OF l/ANDAIVUS, declaring the action of the respondents for not arranging the petitioners service benefits i. e. , Gratuity, P. F. amount, salary for the un-availed earned leave, pension payable under Employees Family Pension Scheme, S R,B. S. (Staff Retirement Benefits scheme), s. B. T (Staff Benevolenlcum-Thrift Fund), un-availed earned leaves salary, amount pending on his name in TSRTC Employees cooperative society, as arbitrary, unjust, in violation of Art. 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to arrange the above benefits duly fixing his pay in the R. P. S. 2005 by taking into the basic pay of Rs.
42551- drawn at the time of removal from service in the interest of justice and fair play. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 arrange the service benefits as requested in the advocate notice dated 03. 11. 2020 pending disposal the above writ petition in the interests of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. V NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: SRl. N' VASUDEVA REDDY, SC FOR TSRTC The Court made the following: THE I{O1\''I}LE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KI"]N'IAIT SHA\/ILI WRIT PETITION No. 23165 of 2020 ORDER: This rvrit petition is being disposed ol at the admission stage rvith the corlsent oi'both the palties. l'his writ petition is filecl seehing the tollo* ing relicf: ".... to issue at.
r appropriate rvrit or direction parlicularl) one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents for not affanging the petitioner's service benefits i. e. , Gratuity, P. F amount, salary for the un-availed earned leave, pension payable under Employees Farnily Pension Scheme. S. R. B. S (Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme), S. B. l (Staff Benevolent-cun-Thrilt Fund). un-availed earned leave salar-"-. amount pending on his name in TSRT(l Eu'rployees Co-operative Societ. v. as arbitrary. trniust. in violation o1'Alt. 14. 2I and 300-A ol the Constilution of' India ancl conscqltentl) clirect thc responclcnls to arrange thc ubovc bcneflts clull'- lixing his paf in the R I'. S. 2005 b1' taliing into tl-re basic pa1' ol' I{s. 4. 155i - clrari n at thc tin-re o1' removal fiotn servtce in the intelest of . justicc and tair play. '' Heard Sri V. Narasimha Goud, counsel lor the petitioner, and Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, Standing Counsel appearing lor the respondents.
It has been contended by the petitioner that initially he was appointed as Mazdoor in the respondent Corporation in the year 1986 and later he was promoted as a Helper and he has been discharging his duties to the best satisfaction of his sr-rperiors and everv one AKS. ] W. P. r"o. 2l165 oi 2020 had initiated concenred. While so, the disciplinary authority petitioner on the allegation ol ciisciplinary proceedings against the t'egular encluiry' and finally, after conducting unaLrthorizecl absence service lirla proceedings dated thc' pciititttrer rr'as retroved fl'onl the petitioner has unsucccsslLlll'v prelerred 19. 10. 2004. Theleafler, the order of removal' the petitioner appeal and revision. Questioning vide I D'No'202 ol 2005 belore the Labour raised Industrial Dispute 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Court-I, Hyderabad, under Section the Labour Court directed the Act. By award dated 27. 07.
2006, without into service' however Corporation to reinstate the petitioner Pursuant attendant benefits and back wages to continuity of service, daled have issued proceedings the saicl award. the respondents petitioner to report to dut'v Cour. rscl fbr thc 19,11. 1006 dilecting tl. re petiliollcr contelldccl tilat due to ill-health' thc petitioner cor"tlcl uot report to duty. howevet', the respondents can settle the terrrinal benetlts in f-avour of the petitioner lor the period he has worked i'e ' 'fherclbre' tionr 1986 tiil the date of his removal ie'' 19 10. 2004 be passed in thc writ counsel contended that appropriate ordel's case of the 3'd respondent to consider the petition directing the benefits for the service rendered by petitioner for rele'ase of terminal service' the date of removal from him from 1986 till had contended for the respondents Standing Counsel appearing to the respondents subrnit a replesentation afresh that let the petitioner A K 5. ,I J \\'. P No.
2i 165 01 2020 and then the respondents wollld consider thc sat-tle and pass appropriate orclers il't accordance with laq' 'fhis Court, having considered the lival subruissiiltls oi'learnccl colrnsel for respective parties, is of the cousidered view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to subn. rit a representation afresh to the respondents, staking his claim lbr service benefits for the service rendered by him from i986 to 19. 10. 2004, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such representation being received, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon in another eight weeks tl-rereafter With the above directions, this writ petition is disposecl ol, No order as to costs. Pending miscellancous petitions. il anl'. shall stancl closccl SD/-K. VENKA H ASSISTANT REGI R ,TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The lr/anaging Director, TSRTC, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2.
The Regional lr/anager(Hyderabad Region), TSRTC, I\/. G. 8. S. , Hyderabad 3. The Depot lvlanager, TSRTC, Bus Depot, Falaknuma, Hyderabad. 4. The Depot Manager, TSRTC, B. H. E. L, Bus Depot, Ramachand rapuram, Hyderabad. 5. One CC to Sri. V. Narasimha Goud, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri. N. Vasudeva Reddy, SC for TSRTC IOPUC] 7. Two CD Copies. PIV HIGH COURT DATED:2111212020 HE s 14 14: o z 0 5 JAN 2021 ORDER * * t) WP. No. 23165 ol 2020 Fs ? ATC Disposing of the WP Without costs. \N . t \ el) C c">D ! \ \)\- e }-b \"'\
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.