IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 4634 of 1999 Between: C. Rangaiah, S/o. Munuswamy, A.P.S.R.T.C., R/o. Mangalampeta Village, Publicherla Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour, Court, Anantapur. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Piler Depot, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the Award passed by the ﬁrst respondnet in I.D.No. 36/96 dt. 22-11-96 which is published in the Gazette vide G.O.Rt.No. 3547 dt. 10.12.96 insofar as directing the second respondnet to appoint the petitionerin A - 2 category Driver post as a fresh candiate as bad, illegal and erroneous and consequently direct the second respondentsto reinstate the petitioner into A-2 category Driver post with continuity of service and all back wages in the interest of justice . Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.DAMODAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner who was working as a Driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Corporation’) seeks directions by way of Mandamus to declare the award passed by the 1st respondent- Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.36/96 dated 22-11-1996 to the extent of the direction to the Corporation to appoint him in A-2 category Driver post as a fresh candidate, as illegal and erroneous, and seeks directions to the Corporation to reinstate him into A-2 category Driver post with continuity of service and all backwages. The petitioner was initially appointed in the Corporation as a Driver on 24-03-1977. On 24-02-1994, he was sent for periodical medical check-up to the Corporation’s hospital in Chittoor and it was found that he was having a partial colour blindness and thereafter he was again sent for medical check up to the Head Quarters Hospital, Tarnaka, Hyderabad, where the Chief Medical Oﬃcer declared that he is unfit for A-1 category Driver post vide certiﬁcate dated 23-06-1994, but however, he was declared ﬁt to hold the post of A-2 category Driver. In spite of the said opinion, he was sent on forced leave with eﬀect from 26-03-1994 and thereafter he was terminated from the services by an order dated 25-02-1995 invoking the Regulation 6 of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees’ (Service) Regulations, 1964 (the Regulations). Questioning the said order of termination from services, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute vide I.D.No.36/96 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned award has recorded the ﬁnding that in spite of the opinion by the Chief Medical Oﬃcer of the Hospital at Tarnaka the petitioner was wrongly terminated from the services on medical grounds instead of appointing him in A-2 category Driver post. Further in the impugned award directions were issued for fresh appointment of the petitioner in the A-2 category Driver post. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that his termination from services by an order dated 25-02-1995 on medical grounds is illegal and contrary to the Regulations. It is submitted that as much as the very retirement of the petitioner on medical grounds is illegal, there was no reason for the Tribunal in not extending him the beneﬁt of past service and protection of pay in A-1 category Driver post. Before I proceed further it is to be noticed that questioning the award of the Tribunal, the Corporation ﬁled W.P.No.26949 of 1997 and the same was dismissed on 24-04-2007. Though the writ petition is of 1999, no counter aﬃdavit is filed on behalf of the Corporation. Heard Smt W.V.S.Rajeswari, learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation, who submits that subsequently there was an amendment to Regulation 6 of the Regulations and, in view of the Regulation 6A (5)(b) of the Regulations, the Corporation is competent to terminate the services of an employee on medical grounds by giving the extra monetary benefit. This Court already upheld the reinstatement of the petitioner as ordered by the Tribunal, by dismissing the W.P.No.26949 of 1997 ﬁled by the Corporation. Even a reading of the Regulation 6 of the Regulations, though there were certain amendments for giving extra monetary beneﬁt, the said amendment came into force only in 2003 and so the said beneﬁt cannot be extended to the petitioner. But, at the same time, it is to be noticed that Regulation 6A of the Regulations empowers retirement on medical grounds subject to the opinion of Medical Oﬃcer. In the instant case, the petitioner was appointed into services in 1977 and even by 1994, at which point of time he was examined in routine medical check up, he has completed about 17 years of service. When he was referred to a Hospital belonging to the Corporation in Tarnaka for further opinion, there the Chief Medical Oﬃcer has opined that though he was found not ﬁt for A-1 category Driver post, but at the same time, he was declared ﬁt to hold the A-2 category Driver post. In spite of the same, the Tribunal has erroneously ordered for fresh appointment of the petitioner into services. It is not a case of retirement of the petitioner on account of misconduct. It is therefore a wrongful retirement of the petitioner on medical grounds by the Corporation and there is no reason or justiﬁcation to deprive the beneﬁt of past service and the pay protection with regard to time scale of A-1 category Driver post. As the petitioner was shown aged 54 years by the time of filing this petition, by this time he must have been aged 64 years and must have crossed the age of superannuation. For the foregoing reasons, I deem it appropriate to modify the Award passed by the Tribunal from that of fresh appointment to the reinstatement of the petitioner into service by protecting his pay based on his last drawn salary at the time of his retirement on medical grounds on 25-02-1995. Consequently, I direct the 2nd respondent-Corporation to re-ﬁx the pay of the petitioner by extending the beneﬁt of continuity of service and treating the period of his absence as on leave with loss of pay. The retiral beneﬁts payable to the petitioner shall be calculated based on such re-ﬁxation. The 2nd respondent-Corporation is directed to pay the diﬀerence of salary pursuant to re-ﬁxation of his pay and all other consequential beneﬁts on attaining the age of superannuation. The Award of the Tribunal stands modiﬁed to the extent indicated above. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J September 18, 2008 CVRK