K. Nagarjuna v. TSRTC
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: K. SARATH
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-03-17. K. Nagarjuna v. TSRTC. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[ 3302 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH WRIT PETITION NO:2479 OF 2024 Between: K NqgaqLL!. a, S/o Late frlarsimhaiah, Aged about 54 years, Occ. Blacksmith, E. No. ' 255781, P. Jo. P1219, Pylon Cotony, Beside Noblir Sclrool, Nagarjuna Sigar. Nalgonda District. ... PETITIONER AND 1. TSRIC, Rept. By its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Regional Manager, TSRTC, Nalgonda Region, Nalgonda. 3. The Depot ltrlanager, TSRTC, Bus Depot, Devarakonda, District. Nalgonda. 4. The Depot Manager, TSRTC, Bus Depot, Kodad, Suryapet District. ...
RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents for not paying the salary for the period from 01 . 1O. 2019 to 12. 10. 2023 along with all consequential benefits as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation Art. 14, 21 and 300(4) of the Constitution of lndia and consequently the petitioner pray this Honble High Court to direct the respondents to pay the salary for the period from 01. 10. 2019 to 12. 10. 2023 i. e. , from the date of premature retirement till he was taken into service along with all consequential benefits including the continuity of service and notional increments and salary right from the date of premature retirement dated 01. 10. 20'19 in the interest of justice and fair play. .
i f, lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrr;r mstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl nay be pleased to direcl the respondents to fix the pay duly extending the conti,r ity of service along with attended benefits (notional benefits) for the period f om 01 . 10. 2019 to 12. 10. 2023 pending disposal of the above writ petition in tlr, interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V. NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N. CHANDRA SEKHAR (S,( FOR TSRTC) The Court made the following: OROER . / IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH WRIT PETITION No. 2479 oF 2024 Date:. L7. O3. 2O26 Between: K. Nagarjuna. ... Petitioner AND TSRTC, Rep. by its Managing Dircctor and others. ... Respondents ORDER: Heard Mr. V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.
Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC appearing for the respondents. perused the material available on record 2. Learned counsel lor thc petitioner submits that this writ petition is filed by the petitioncr questioning the action of the respondents for not paying thc saiar5z for the period from I 01. 10. 20i9 to 12. 1O. 2023 along with all conse ( uential benehts, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Learned counsel for the pclitioner lurther ;ubmits that the petitioner joined the services in the respondenr ;-Corporation as a cleaner on O 1. 1 1. I 99 I under the displaced e mployee's quota and the petitioner was regularized in the yr:rL; 1992. While it being so, the respondent No. 3 issued pr( ceedings dated 20. OL. 2Ol7 stating that the petitioner,s da ,e of birth as "17. O9. 196 1" instead of "i6. 07. t969". Aggrie r ed by the said proceedings, the petitioner hled W. p. No. 28OOB r f 2Ol7 and this Court allowed the said writ petition on 31. O7. 2 119.
Thereafter, the respondents had filed Review I. A. No, I of 2Ol9 in W. P. No. 28OOB of 2Ol7 and the sarne was dismissed on 2O. O1. 2O23. Despite the dismissal of review rpplication, the respondents have not reinstated the petitiorr :r into service. Subsequently, the petitioner filed C. C. No. 945 o- 2023. In view of the filing of said Contempt Case, the respond,l rts have issued an Office Order uide No. Pll785(1)/23--KDD dt ted 13. 10. 2023 and reinstated the petitioner into service and c,t the same day, the petitioner joined the duty. But the respondents have not paid the salary for the period from 01. 10. 2019 to |2. LO. 2O23 i. e. , from the date of premature re tirement and till he was taken into service and also not paid all consequential benehts including continuity of service and increments etc. The said action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary 4.
Learned counsel for thc pctitioner lurther submits that while reinstating the petitioner into service, the respondents mentioned in the Office Order dated 13. 10. 2023 that the reinstatement is subject to thc outcome of thc Writ Appeal hled by the respondents in W. A. No. 598 of 2023. In the said writ appeal, there is no interim orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court and the same is still pending. The respondents have stated oraily that till the disposal of the writ appeal, they will not pay any arnounts to the petitioncr and also treated the service of the petitioner as No Work No - Pay and the same is contrary to the orders of the llon'ble Suprcme Court. There is no mistake on the part of the petitioncr and in view of the premature retirement orders issued by the respondents, the I petitioner is not permitted to join the duty < r continuing in servlce.
In view ol the same, Iearned couns: requested this Court to allow the writ petition directing the re r pondents to pay the salary from 01. 10. 20 19 to 12. 1O. 2023 along with all consequential benefi ts. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has :elied upon the following Judgments:-i. Shobhrr Ram Raturi o. Ha4l,tna Vidgut Prasaran Nigam Limited and. Orsl ii. K. Subramaniann (Died) thrcugh f,RS K. S. Balakrishno,n & Ors a. M/s Krisl,,. tru Mills Pat. Ltd2 6. On the othcr hand, learned Standing Col nsel for TGRTC, basing on the counter-affidavit, submits that the self-declaration of age by the petitioner at 1 I e time of the appointment, the Managing Director har; accorded the permission to reckon the date of birth of L re petitioner AS "17. 09. 1961" instead of "16. 07. 1969" and af er verifying the records, the respondents have passed the pr tceedin6is dated 'atn 2ot6 sc tsz 1 2025 5C Online SC 2383 I 20. Ol.
2Ol7 for retirement of the petitioncr and altering the date of birth of the petitioner and to let him continue till his superannuation. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 28OO8 ol 2017 and the same was allowed and also subsequent dismissal of the review application, the respondents permitted the petitioner to join the duty by reinstating service on I 3. lO . 2023 . But thc respondents have Illed W. A. No. 59B of 2023 and thc same is still pending. In view ol the same, the respondents are not paying salary to the petitioner for the period from 0l. lO. 2Ol7 to 12. 10. 2023, in view of the settled principle of No Work No Pay. During the said -period, the petitioner had not discharged any duties or rendered any service to the respondent Corporation and therefore, petitioner cannot claim salary for the said period as a matter of right.
It is a well established principle of scrvice jurisprudence that wages are payable only for the work actually performed and ln the absence of any services rendered, the question of payment of salary for the said period does not arise and there is no valid ground to allow the writ pctition. Hence, learned I Standing Counsel rcquested this Court to < ismiss the writ petltron. 7. After hearing both sides and perusir g the material available on record, this Court is of the cons dered view that initially the petitioncr joined duty on 01. 11. 19! 1. At the time of joining the duty, the respondents have reccr led the date of birth of the petitioner as 16. O7 . 1969. l'hereafter, the respondents issued proceedings on 20. 01. 20 J ' by altering the date of birth ol the petitioner as "17. 09. t )61" instead of "16. O7. 1969" and the samc was subject matter relore this Court in W. P. No. 28OOB of 2017 filed by the petitrr ner, which was allowed by this Court on 31. O7 . 2019.
Thereafter, the respondents, without implemcnting the order; of this Court, lrled Review I. A. No 2 of 2019 in W. P. No. 28OOti of 2017 and the same was dismissed by this Court on'. ',8. O1. 2023 and non-compliance of the said orders, the petitioner filed C. C. No. 945 of 2023. In view of the filing of th: said Contempt Case, the respondents have reinstated the peti: cner into service through Olfice Order uide No. Pl/785(1)/ 23--KDD dated 13. 1O. 2023 and on the same day, the petitioner joined the duty. Now, the case of the petitioner is that after reinstatement of the petitioner, the respondents havc not paid the salary to the petitioner for which he was out of service lor the period from 01. 10. 20 19 to 72. 10. 2023 and aiso not paid all the consequential benefits. In view of the same, the present writ petition is filed 8. The main contention of the petitioner IS that the respondents have to pay the salary for the period from 01. 10. 20 19 to 12. 10.
2023 for which thc petitioner was out of service as there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and the mistake on part of the respondcnts for altering the date of birth of the petitioner and retired prenraturely. The said contention was accepted by this Court by ailowing the writ petition in W. P. No. 2SOO8 of 2017. 9. The contention ol the respondents is that the petitioner has not worked during the said period, in view of the same, the principle No Work No Pay applies to thc instant case and the -petitioner is not entitled for any salary or cons() benelits luential for the said period 10. Learned Couns<:l for t hc petitioner has re lied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supremc Court in Sholtt\. a Ram Rrrfitri S (supra- 7) and the relevant portion of the Juc gment reads under: 3. Hauing giuen our thoughtfiil considt ration to the- controuersa, ue are satisfted, tha. t after the impugned order of retirement dated 3. . 12.
2002 u)as set aside, the appellant uas entit ed to all consequential beneJits. The lies with the fault respondents in not hauing utilised the . ; ruices of the appellant the 1. i . 2003 to for Penod from 31. 12. 2005. Had the appellant been tt lowed to conlinue in seruice, he tuould hat< readilg discharged his duties. Hctuittg restrcLined him from rendering his seruices uith effect 1. L2OO3 to from t. lotued 31. 12. 2005, the respondent cannot be . to press the self seruing ple-a of denging lt m uages the period in question, on the pit a of the for principle of "no u. tork no pag". 11. The said abovc findings of the Hon'bl': Supreme Court would squarely apply to the lacts of the instarl case. As there is no fault on the part of the petitioner, he respondents prematurely retired the pctitioner and this t- rurt allowed the W. P. No. 28OO8 of 2017. In view ol- the same, the respondents have to pay the salary to the petitioner for the period from 01. 10. 2019 to 12. 1O. 2023. L2.
The other contention of thc respondents is that the respondents have liled W. A. No. 598 of 2023 before the Division Bench of this Court and the same is pending. In view of the same, the petitioner is not entitlcd to any service benehts for which he is out of service tiIl thc disposal of the said writ appeal and also mentioned in the rcin statement Oflice Order dated 13. tO. 2023. 13. On the other hand, lcarncd counsel for the petitioner contended that mere pendency of the writ appeal is not a ground for non-payment of service benefits to the petitioner and the same is contrary to thc orclers passed by the Honble Supreme Court in K. Subramanio,m (Died) through LRS K,S. Balakrishnan & Ors (supra-2) and the relevant portion of the said order reads as under 24. In the present case. the lessee challenged the of rent but tlid not seek fixation fair a stag of its 1). operation before the appellate or reuisi tnal fora.
Mere fiIing of an appeal does not operale as a staA of the decree/order under appeal is the statutorg ordainment in sub-rule (1) oJ Rule 5 of { trder XLI, CPC. Pagments were made belatedly anc, tnly afi. er protracted litigation. Such conduct (:( '. nnot be reconciled with bona Jlde doubt as t. liability. Appellants, it is cleor, defaulted in pagmr nt of rent and such default, on and fct<:ts in the circtt nstarTces, is undoubtedly a tuilful default. The < cncurrent finding of the appellate authority, affirrr,< d bg the High Court, that the lessee and there tfter the appellants hctd been in u. 'ilful default, rests on sound appreciation of the legal positiort and the appellants' otun ad missions. 14. The said above findings ol the Hon,ble iupreme Court would squarely apply to the facts of the instant ( ase.
As there is no stay order by thc l)ivision t]cnch, in view ,; the same, the respondents cannot state that thc petitioner is not entitled for the service benefits tilt the disposal of the said u.. it appeal. 15. With the above findings, rhis pet Writ r. on is allowed directing the respondents to pay the salary for which the petitioner is out ol sr:rvice lrom g O 1 . I O. 20 l to 12 . 1O . 2023 along with all consequcn(ial benr:fils rt,ithin a perio,l of twelve (12) weeks from the date ol receipt o[ a copy of this or ler. i3 Miscellaneous petitions, il any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. Thcre shall be no order as to costs SD/. A. H. S. GOWRI SHANKAR SI TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I. ECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'btg Sri Justice K. SARATH (For His Lordship'3 Kind perusat) To, 1. The Managing Director, TSRTC, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Regional Manager, TSRTC, Nalgonda Region, Nalgonda. J.
The Depot Manager, TSRTC, Bus Depot, Devarakonda, District. Nalgonda. 4. The Depot Manager, TSRTC, Bus Depot, Kodad, Suryapet District. E One CC to SRI V. NARASTMHA GOUD, Advocate. tOpUCI b. One CC to SRI N. CHANDRA SEKHAR (SC FOR TSRTC ZONE 2). tOpUCl 7. 1 1 LR. Copies 8. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. 9. The Secretarv. Advocates' Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. 10 Two CD Copies. BSK + I I i HIGH COURT DATED:1710312026 \ t nES I o o (_) ,I c ? q ? q? fr (;) * * i) :ii|). 'iI ORDER WP. No. 2479 of 2024 I I l t, ALLOWING THE WRIT PETTTION WTTHOUT COSTS q
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.