IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 293 of 2005 Between: 1. APSRTC Medak Region Sangareddy Medak District, rep., by its Regional Manager and others ...... APPELLANTS AND V.Bhoomi Reddy. .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO :293 of 2005 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘the APSRTC’), is aggrieved by the order dated 1.9.2004 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.14878 of 2004 modifying the punishment imposed upon the respondent-writ petitioner by the Divisional Manager of APSRTC, Medak Division, Sangareddy, under the impugned proceedings dated 29.9.2001, whereby the APSRTC was directed to take into account the service rendered by the respondent-writ petitioner prior to the date of his removal from service for the purpose of extending to him the benefits to which he is entitled as per rules. The respondent-writ petitioner was a driver in the APSRTC and he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings in connection with an accident caused by him on 30.6.2000. He was removed from service by proceedings dated 18.5.2001. The respondent’s appeal before the Divisional Manager resulted in the proceedings dated 29.9.2001, whereby he was directed to be reinstated into service afresh as a driver. Aggrieved by the denial of his past service, the respondent-writ petitioner approached this Court by way of W.P.No.14878 of 2004. The learned single Judge, having considered the material on record, came to the conclusion that the word ‘reinstatement’ used in the impugned proceedings dated 29.9.2001 must necessarily be construed in the light of the precedential law on this aspect, meaning that it cannot be treated as a fresh appointment and that a liberal interpretation has to be given to the said term. Accordingly, the learned single Judge directed that the respondent-writ petitioner should be continued in service without backwages, and that the period from the date of his removal from service upto the date of his reinstatement would not be treated as continuity of service. However, the learned single Judge directed that whatever service was actually rendered by the respondent-writ petitioner prior to the date of his removal from service should be taken into account for the purpose of extending to him the benefits to which he is entitled according to the rules. Aggrieved by the said direction, the APSRTC is in appeal before us. Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC, contended that in the light of the specific direction given by the appellate authority that the respondent-writ petitioner should be treated as a fresh driver, the direction of the learned single Judge granting him the benefit of his past service was unsustainable in law. It is however to be noticed that in the appellate order dated 29.9.2001, which was subjected to challenge before the learned single Judge, the appellate authority specifically observed, while setting aside the removal orders, that the respondent-writ petitioner was ‘reinstated’ into service with immediate effect. In the light of the judgments considered by the learned single Judge with regard to the scope of the term ‘reinstatement’, it is clear that the said term would not have been applied in the case of a fresh appointment. Further, the learned single Judge adequately protected the interest of the APSRTC by not only denying backwages but also directing that the period during which the respondent-writ petitioner remained out of service should not be counted for continuity of service. The only benefit given to the respondent-writ petitioner is with regard to the actual service rendered by him prior to the date of his removal from service and such service is to be taken into account only for reckoning the benefits due to him as per rules. We find no defect or irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned single Judge in modifying the proceedings passed by the appellate authority on 29.9.2001. The writ appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ______________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar Date: 11th November, 2009 Nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 293 of 2005 (Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) 11th November, 2009