SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 17400

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
SMT. T. RAMA DEVI HYDERABAD – Appellant
Versus
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT HYD AND ANOTHER – Respondent
WP 14208/2008



IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO Date : 06-05-2026 WRIT PETITION No.14208 of 2008 Between :

Smt.T.Rama Devi.

.. Petitioner AND A.P.S.R.T.C. and another.

.. Respondents

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed, declaring the respondents’

failure to pay the petitioner’s salary for the period from 10.11.2004 to October 2007 as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the respondents to pay the salary for the said period.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

(a) The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in the year 1996, and her services were regularized with effect from 01.01.1998. On 09.10.2004, while the petitioner was discharging her duties as a Conductor, pain began in her leg, and she was unable to continue her duties. Therefore, the petitioner made an oral request to the respondent authorities seeking two days’ leave. However, the Depot Manager instructed the petitioner to complete the trip.

(b) After completing her duty, the petitioner went for a medical check-up. The doctors advised her to take a rest. However, she did not recover from the pain. Therefore, the petitioner went to Sai Krishna Super Speciality Neuro Hospital for further treatment. As she did not recover from the leg pain, she visited CBS Hospital for necessary treatment. The Medical Officers could not identify her disease; however, they prescribed some medicines, which were not suitable for her condition. (c) The CBS Hospital did not refer the petitioner to any other hospital. Finally, the petitioner approached Osmania General Hospital on 23.12.2004. Immediately after examining the X-ray and other relevant reports, the doctors at Osmania General Hospital diagnosed the disease of the petitioner’s as Pott’s spine at L3 and L4, along with a neurological deficit. She was also informed that she had been given the wrong medicines all those days, due to which her entire body developed an infection. Due to tuberculosis in the spine, the bones in her body had deteriorated due to infection.

(d) Thereafter, the petitioner was admitted to Osmania General Hospital, where the doctors advised her to undergo treatment and take complete bed rest. Accordingly, she took treatment for three months at Osmania General Hospital and was subsequently discharged. At the time of discharge, she was instructed to take complete bed rest.

(e) After two months, the petitioner approached the doctors at Osmania General Hospital, where she was advised to wear a belt while moving from place to place. She was further directed not to discharge heavy duties and was advised to attend lighter duties. The doctors also cautioned her against travelling in buses. They issued a certificate stating that the petitioner was fit for stationary duty, except for a conductor’s job. The petitioner underwent treatment for bone TB (Pott’s spine at L3 and L4) with neurological deficit from 02.03.2005 to

16.12.2005.

(f) As per the doctors’ advice, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents on 17.12.2005 seeking to provide lighter duties for some time instead of continuing as a Conductor. However, the said representation was not acted upon. The petitioner again submitted a representation on 25.03.2006 requesting that lighter duties be provided other than the Conductor. The respondents did not act upon the said representation.

(g) The Civil Surgeon (Orthopaedics) of Osmania General Hospital also issued a certificate on 20.02.2007 stating that the petitioner was fit to work from 21.12.2007 and advised her to perform lighter duties. The petitioner submitted another representation to the respondent authorities, enclosing the said certificate and requested that the respondent authorities provide lighter duties other than the Conductor. However, the respondents failed to act upon the petitioner’s representation.

(h) Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner approached the Human Rights Commission, Hyderabad, reques

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top