Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
K. Manmadha Rao, J.
S. M. S. Vali – Appellant
Versus
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 5504 of 2015
Decided On : 20-06-2022
SERVICE LAW - REVERSION - ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ACT, 1958 - SECTION 45 - RETIREMENT BENEFITS - ENTITLEMENT - DRIVER REMOVED FROM SERVICE DUE TO ACCIDENT - REVERTED TO HELPER POST - RETIRED FROM SERVICE AS HELPER - NOT ENTITLED TO RETIREMENT BENEFITS AS DRIVER.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was initially appointed as a Shramik in 1975 and later promoted to Driver Grade-II. In 1995, he was involved in an accident resulting in the death of the lorry driver and injuries to 20 passengers. He was suspended, an enquiry was conducted, and he was removed from service. He filed an appeal, which was rejected. He then filed a review petition before the Regional Manager, who reverted him to the post of Helper permanently. He reported to duty and retired from service as a Helper in 2010.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was involved in a fatal accident due to lack of anticipation, resulting in the death of the lorry driver and injuries to passengers. He was found guilty in the departmental enquiry and removed from service. He was later reinstated as a Helper on review. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to retirement benefits as a driver since he was retired from service as a Helper.
Issues: Whether the petitioner, who was removed from service as a driver due to an accident and later reinstated as a Helper, is entitled to retirement benefits as a driver.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to retirement benefits as a driver since he was retired from service as a Helper. The court noted that the petitioner was found guilty in the departmental enquiry and removed from service. He was later reinstated as a Helper on review. The court held that the petitioner's entitlement to retirement benefits was governed by the post he held at the time of retirement, which was Helper.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. K. Manmadha Rao, J. - This Writ Petition is filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
'....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus to declare the 1st respondent impugned proceedings No.GC1/19/2014-PO-1, dated 24.01.2015 as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the impugned order dated 24.01.2015 and further direct the 1st respondent to fix the pay scale as regular driver due to utilized the services of petitioner after reversion as Helper post and pass such other orders'.
2. The brief case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Cleaner in the respondent corporation on 02.08.1975 and posted at anantapur Depot. Subsequently he got promotion as Grade-II Driver on 29.05.1986 and posted to Srikalahasti Depot and again transferred to Tirupati-I Depot in the year 1994. On 13.05.1995 the petitioner was taken over the bus Tirupati to Hyderabad, while he was proceeding towards Hyderabad a Lorry bearing No. aaQ 3611 coming on the opposite direction with high speed with heavy iron load and suddenly turned his vehicle to the right side and dashed the bus in the opposite direction, as a result of which the driver of the lorry succumbed to injuries and sustained fracture to the right leg of the petitioner. Therefore the petitioner was suspended on 27.12.1995 and later an enquiry was concluded and removed the petitioner from service on 19.06.1996. assailing the removal order dated 19.06.1996, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Tirupati and the same was rejected on 02.09.1996. as against the said order, the petitioner filed a Review before the 3rd respondent, who partly allowed and reverted to the post of Helper and posted to Puttur Depot. The petitioner joined duty as Helper, in the meantime C.C.No.397 of 1995 was ended in acquittal as per Judgment dated 01.08.1998.
3. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner made a representation to the 3rd respondent to reconsider his case to the post of driver in view of criminal case ended in acquittal, which was rejected on 29.05.1999, though the petitioner was reverted to the post of Helper, but the respondent corporation has utilized him as a driver and paying the scale of helper only. While the petitioner was working as Helper, he was retired from service on 31.07.2010. Since the Criminal case ended in acquittal the petitioner is entitled to receive retirement benefits. Therefore the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent with request to consider his case for paying the retirement benefits treating his services as Driver, so far no action taken by the respondents. Therefore the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 31429 of 2014 and this Court passed an order dated 20.10.2014 directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within two months. In compliance of the same the 1st respondent passed an erroneous order dated 24.01.2015 vide proceedings No. GC1/19/2014-PO-1, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence this writ petition is filed.
4. Per contra, the respondents filed counter denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and contended that the petitioner involved in fatal accident on 13.05.1995 on the route Tirupati to Hyderabad due to lack of anticipation with a private lorry coming with opposite direction, resulting the death of Lorry driver besides severe injuries to 20 passengers. The Depot Manager, Tirupati has removed the petitioner from service on 19.06.1996. after considering the Review Petition, posted the petitioner to the post of Helper on reversion on 21.11.1996. On 31.07.2010 the petitioner retired from service from the respondent corporation on superannuation in the post of Helper. all the retirement benefits are applicable in the post of Helper, but not driver. Hence the petitioner is not eligible for retirement benefits in the post of driver, which he is entitled
An employee who is removed from service due to an accident and later reinstated in a lower post is not entitled to retirement benefits based on the higher post.
Procedural fairness in labour enquiries requires opportunity for cross-examination and consideration of employee's arguments, reflecting the need for equitable treatment in disciplinary actions.
Termination without notice or opportunity to be heard violates natural justice principles, necessitating remand for proper inquiry.
A public employer must follow due process, such as issuing a charge memo or suspension order, before denying a driver the right to continue performing their duties based on allegations of negligence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
