HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.NO.1847 OF 2002 Dt.21.10.2010 Between: The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nirmal Depot, Adilabad and another ..Petitioners And C.V.Swamy and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.NO.1847 OF 2002 ORDER: In spire of service of notice, none appears for the 1st respondent. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The 1st respondent was working as Driver in APSRTC and while he was driving the bus bearing No.AAZ 6643 on 9.9.1991 met with an accident, which resulted in death of an old lady by name Kadame Yellakka, and thereupon criminal case as well as departmental action has been initiated against him. In the departmental enquiry, the charges framed against him were proved and in the enquiry it was held that he was responsible for the accident and the penalty of withholding of annual grade increments for two years with cumulative effect was imposed and the APSRTC was forced to pay Rs.43,517/- as compensation for the death of the old lady as per the orders of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Adilabad. The said punishment was imposed by order, dated 12.3.1992. As the said punishment was not questioned, but after a lapse of more than six years, the 1st respondent filed application in P.W.C.No.7 of 1998 on the file of the authority appointed under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short, ‘the Act’) for Adilabad Area, and the 2nd respondent, who is the competent authority, dismissed the application of the 1st respondent by order dated 31.12.1999. Though the said P.W.C.No.7 of 1998 was dismissed, on application filed by the 1st respondent seeking to pay the wages deducted on account of the punishment, the 2nd respondent by consequential order dated 18.12.2000 directed the APSRTC to deposit the sum of Rs.35,000/-. As the application filed by the 1st respondent itself was dismissed with regard to the deduction of wages on account of the punishment imposed on the 1st respondent withholding of annual grade increments for two years with cumulative effect, the question of passing of consequential order dated 18.12.2000 does not arise and therefore there cannot be any recovery proceedings against the APSRTC contrary to the order passed by the Authority in P.W.C.No.7 of 1998, dated 31.12.1999. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is the opinion that the order passed by the 2nd respondent in P.W.C.No.7 of 1998, dated 18.12.2000, is illegal and unsustainable in view of the dismissal order dated 31.12.1999 in P.W.C.No.7 of 1998. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the order in P.W.C.No.7 of 1998, dated 18.12.2000 is set aside. No order as to costs. _______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 21.10.2010 kpr