IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) Dt.TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 35806 of 1998 Between: G.Ramakrishna ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, APSRTC, Hyderabad Musheerabad and two others .....RESPONDENT(S) HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.35806 of 1998 O R D E R: This writ petition has been instituted seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not refixing his pay in the scale of pay attached to the post of Mechanic Grade.II after completion of the period of punishment, as bad and illegal. 2. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he joined the service of the State Road Transport Corporation (hence forth referred to as APSRTC) as a Cleaner in the year 1975. During the year 1980, he was promoted as a Mechanic and he was posted as such to Bus Depot at Armoor. It is his case that he suffered a severe chest pain and consequently received treatment from a private hospital and produced the necessary certificate in that regard. But, however on the plea that the writ petitioner has not obtained prior sanction of leave for the period of his absence, as a measure of discipline, the Depot Manager, Armoor passed orders on 9.5.1991 removing him from service. The appeal preferred by the writ petitioner there against was rejected by the Divisional Manager, Nizamabad on 19.9.1991. He carried the matter by way of review before the Regional Manager, Karimnagar. The Regional Manager, Karimnagar passed orders through his proceedings dated 30.1.1992 modifying the punishment of removal imposed by the Depot Manager, Armoor as under: “1. The petitioner be and is hereby reverted to the post of Cleaner duly reinstating him into service, with immediate effect, for a period of one year. He shall restore back to his original post after one year. 2. On reinstatement, his pay is fixed at Rs.1,050/- in the time scale of cleaner category, which shall have an effect on his future service and drawal of increments. 3. On reinstatement, he is posted to Bhodan Depot. He shall report to duty within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which orders shall stand cancelled. 4. The intervening period from the date of removal to the date of joining, shall be treated as NOT ON DUTY.” The Regional Manager, Karimnagar posted him to Bodhan Depot. Accordingly, the writ petitioner has been attending to duty as a Cleaner with effect from 19.2.1992 at Bodhan. It is submitted by the writ petitioner that on completion of period of punishment as per the orders dated 30.1.1992 of the Regional Manager, Karimnagar, he was restored as Mechanic Grade.II with effect from 16.12.1994. But, however he was not paid the salary and allowances duly refixing his pay at the same stage at which he was restored. He further submits that the persons similarly placed have all been drawing much higher scales of pay and the writ petitioner has been unauthorizedly discriminated in the matter of pay fixation and he has been thus put to grave hardship. Hence, this writ petition has been instituted by him. 3. The respondents have contested this writ petition by filing a detailed counter-affidavit in the matter. It is submitted that the writ petitioner has not set out all the true and correct facts and he has selectively stated only few facts and sought for the relief on an untenable plea. It is stated in the counter- affidavit that the Depot Manager, Armoor has passed orders on 09.5.1991 imposing the punishment of removal from service on the writ petitioner for his act of unauthorized absence from duty, which punishment has since been modified by the Regional Manager, Karimnagar on 30.1.1992 to that of reversion to the post of Cleaner for a period of one year. It was made clear that after completion of one year period, the writ petitioner will be restored as Mechanic Grade-II. The Regional Manager has ordered his pay to be fixed as a Cleaner at Rs.1,050/- Upon reinstatement, he was posted to Bodhan Depot, where the writ petitioner has joined duty on 19.2.1992. It is therefore averred that if the writ petitioner has continuously rendered service as a Cleaner for a period of one year from 19.2.1992, he would not only have been restored as a Mechanic Grade-II and his pay also would have been restored accordingly on 19.2.1993. But, however there were certain important circumstances that have intervened. The writ petitioner was placed under suspension by the Depot Manager, Bodhan with effect from 28.9.1992 for acts of desertion of duty by him. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings thereafter and by an order passed on 15.4.1993, the Depot Manager, Bodhan imposed the punishment of removal from service on the writ petitioner. When the writ petitioner preferred an appeal there against to the Divisional Manager, Nizamabad, the Divisional Manager has modified this order of punishment of removal of service to that of a deferment of increment for a period of two yeas which shall have its effect on his future increments. The Divisional Manager through his orders dated 20.1.1994 has also directed that the period between 15.4.1993 till the date of his reinstatement shall not be treated as duty. The Divisional Manager posted him to Bansiwada Depot as a Cleaner, where the writ petitioner joined duty on 14.2.1994. Thus, the period when he was kept out of service having not been treated as period spent on duty, restoration of the status of the writ petitioner pursuant to the orders passed on 30.1.1992 by the Regional Manager, Karimnagar was got delayed. Ultimately, the writ petitioner was restored to his original status as Mechanic Grade-II on 20.10.1994. It was further submitted that when the writ petitioner was working at Armoor, by way of punishment, his pay was reduced from the stage of Rs.1320/- to Rs.1075/-. This reduction was ordered to last for a period of five years. It is subsequent to this punishment of reduction of pay, he came to be removed from service by the Depot Manager, Armoor on 09.5.1991. Therefore, at the time of his removal from service, he was drawing his pay at Rs.1075/- at Armoor. Hence, upon restoration of his status as Mechanic Grade-II on 20.10.1994, his pay was restored to Rs.1075/-. It was further pointed out that upon restoration as Mechanic Grade-II, he was posted to Bheemgal Depot from Bodhan on 16.12.1994. Thereafter, his pay as a Mechanic Grade-II was further revised and fixed at Rs.1870/- in accordance with the revised pay scales of 1993. Once again, for his act of unauthorized absence, the Depot Manager, Bhimgal, by his order dated 18.12.1995, imposed the punishment of removal from service on the writ petitioner and he has preferred an appeal to the Chief Mechanical Engineer, Nizamabad against the said punishment, and that appeal was rejected on 12.3.1996. He once again filed a review petition before the Regional Manager, Nizamabad and by an order passed on 25.7.1996, the Regional Manager,Nizamabad modified the punishment imposed by the Depot Manager, Bhimgal on 18.2.1995 to that of reversion to the post of Helper for a period of three years and he has been posted to Kamareddy Depot. It was further ordered that his annual increments be deferred for a period of two years which will have effect on his future increments. Further, the period of his absence pursuant to the order of removal till his reinstatement be treated as period not on duty. Pursuant to these orders of the Regional Manager, Nizamabad, the writ petitioner was taken back to duty at Kamareddy Depot on 12.8.1996 as a Helper. Accordingly, his pay was once again fixed in the post of Helper at the stage of Rs.1840/- and subsequently, when the scales of pay were revised in the year 1997, his pay was fixed at the stage of Rs.2800/-. Therefore, it is contended that the respondents have not acted illegally in fixing his pay as Mechanic Grade-II upon restoring his status as such pursuant to the orders passed on 30.1.1992 by the Regional Manager, Nizamabad. 4. I have heard the learned counsel Sri B.H.R.Choudary for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the respondents. 5. The writ petitioner is certainly guilty of not disclosing all the subsequent developments that have taken place after the Regional Manager, Nizamabad has passed orders on 30.1.1992. If the writ petitioner was imposed a punishment of reduction of his pay by the Depot Manager, Armoor from the stage of Rs.1320/- to Rs.1075/- for a period of five years, prior to his imposing the punishment of removal from service for his acts of unauthorized absence on 09.5.1991, the pay of the writ petitioner, upon restoration of his status as a Mechanic Grade-II pursuant to the orders passed by the Regional Manager, Nizamabad on 30.1.1992, can only be at the same stage of pay namely Rs.1075/-. Thereafter, if the writ petitioner has been removed from service once again, which punishment was modified to that of reversion as a Helper for a period of three years, once again by the orders passed by the Regional Manager, Nizamabad on 25.7.1996, there could not have been any fault of the respondent-Corporation in not restoring the original pay of the petitioner. The series of punishments, which the writ petitioner appears to have suffered and also the series of orders passed by various competent authorities ordering the periods of his absence from service not to be counted towards duty, the writ petitioner cannot successfully maintain the present claim made by him in this writ petition. Each one of those punishment orders raises a separate cause of action and they will have to be called in question, if the writ petitioner is aggrieved in any manner about the same. Without adjudicating the correctness or otherwise of all such proceedings, he could not have solicited for restoration of his pay as a Mechanic Grade-II at the stage of Rs.1320/- in the scales of pay available in the year 1993 and also seek for corresponding pay revision thereafter. Each punishment order has got to be given effect to and worked out. In that process, fixation of pay of the writ petitioner will be adversely affected. Therefore, all such questions, not being capable of resolution now, the relief prayed for in this writ petition in isolation cannot be granted. 6. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. But, however without costs. ___________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 26th November, 2009 PNV