ORDER :

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner Sri D. Kodandarami Reddy, heard learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC, Sri Praveen Reddy, appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

2. The main prayer sought for by the Petitioner is as follows :

“to issue writ, or direction especially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in reinstating the petitioner into service with continuity of service for purpose of terminal benefits and seniority without back wages from 05.05.1992 to 15.11.2011 vide proceedings of the 2nd respondent in L1/785/(119)/2011- RM-MA, dated 15.11.2011 and consequently direct the respondents to pay all back wages and all attendant benefits till the date of reinstatement forthwith.”

PERUSED THE RECORD:

3. The relevant portion of the order impugned dt. 15.11.2011 vide L1/785(119)/2011-RM-MR, of the 2nd Respondent reads as under :

“The Vice Chairman and Managing Director has accorded sanction to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service for the purpose of terminal benefits and seniority only as per the Proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.47, dated 15.07.2011 issued by Principal Secretary Government, Social Welfare (CV2) Department.”

4. Paras 5 & 6 of the Additional Affidavit filed by the Petitioner on 12.09.2022 read as under :

Para 5 : I submit that as my caste certificate is declared as genuine I am entitled for all the benefits from date of initial appointment to date of superannuation with proper fixation including salary for the interregnum period i.e., from date of removal to date of reinstatement. But this was not done by the Respondents.

Para 6 : I submit that I am not gainfully employed for the interregnum period i.e., from date of removal to date of reinstatement (5-5-1992 to 15-11-2011). For that extent I am filing this affidavit on oath. In the interregnum period I was approaching the authorities and also courts repeatedly by ventilating my grievance for getting justice.

5. The Additional Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents in September, 2022, in particular paras 8 and 10, reads as follows :

Para 8 : With regard to the averments made in para-5 of the additional affidavit, it submitted that the Petitioner was removed from service based on the fact that the Revenue Authorities i.e., the Collector has held that the caste certificate produced by the Petitioner was a fake one and not genuine. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot attribute any liability on the Respondent Corporation for payment of back wages and other attendants benefits for the period no service was rendered by the Petitioner from 05.05.1992 to 18.11.2011 which is period of almost 20 years.

Para 10 : It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court cannot decide the disputed questions of fact whether the Petitioner was gainfully employed or not. It is submitted that the Respondent Corporation is disputing the fact that the Petitioner is not gainfully employed without the Petitioner filing any supporting documentary proof. It is submitted that scope of judicial review of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while dealing with the order of removal is very limited. Therefore, the averment in the additional affidavit filed by the Petitioner does not help the case of the Petitioner.

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE:

6. The Petitioner was appointed as conductor in July, 1980 in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. On a compliant lodged against the Petitioner before the District Collector, Nizamabad alleging that the Petitioner obtained a false caste certificate the Petitioner was removed from service on 05.05.1992 and Caste certificate cancelled by Joint Collector on 28.12.1992. Petitioner approached High Court vide W.P.No.2979 of 1993 and the Writ Petition was allowed on 15.03.1993 remitting the matter to the competent authority to give reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner and pass appropriate orders. The District Collector again cancelled Petitioner’s caste certificate vid