IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 4448 of 2001 BETWEEN: G.Devarajulu Chetty, S/o G.Narayana Chetty, R/o Tirumala, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Transport Corporation Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Vigilance & Security Officer, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nellore Zone, Nellore. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issue an order direction or writ particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ declaring the conditions 1 and 2 in the proceedings No.SB/19(2)/97-ED"N" DT:" 10-8- 197 are illegal, arbitrary and void and consequently direct the respondent to grant continuity of service in the cadre of Security Guard w.e.f. 10-9-97 with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned condition Nos.1 and 2 imposed in the order dated 10.09.1997, passed in Proceedings No.SB/19(2)/97-ED"N", by the Vizilance and Security Officer, Nellore Zone of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’). 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Security Guard in the Vizilance and Security Wing of the respondent-Corporation in Nellore Zone, on 08.05.1981. Subsequently, his services were regularized in the said post. While he was working in Puttur Depot, on personal reasons, he tendered his resignation on 13th December 1994, which was accepted. Thereafter, on 04.09.1996, he has submitted an application, seeking permission to withdraw the resignation submitted by him, and also sought for reinstatement into service. Subsequently, after his application, the 2nd respondent has addressed to the Vice- Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation and on the ground that the said authority has granted permission to withdraw the resignation tendered by the petitioner, has passed the impugned order dated 10.09.1997, granting permission to the petitioner to withdraw his resignation. Pursuant to his resignation and acceptance, the petitioner was paid the amounts due to him on account of Gratuity, Provident Fund (PF), Staff Retirement Benefit Scheme (SRBS) and Staff Benevolent Thrift Fund Scheme (SBT). While issuing the impugned orders for reappointment of the petitioner after being permitted to withdraw his resignation, two conditions are imposed, which read as under : “1. He should pay back the amounts received by him towards settlement i.e. PF/Gratuity and others. 2. He should become junior most in the cadre of Security Guard in terms of Regulation 7(a) & (b) of APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulation, 1964.” 3. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the conditions imposed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has paid back the following amounts along with interest, when he was reinstated in the year 1997 : 1. Gratuity Rs.33,754-00 2. P.F. Rs.21,284-00 3. S.R.B.S. Rs. 7,244-00 4. S.B.T. Rs.11,333-00 4. In this writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that as much as he has already refunded the accrued benefits on account of his past service with interest, he is entitled for the service benefits from the date of his initial appointment. But at the same time, he has also questioned condition No.1, by which, the amounts, which were paid to him on accepting the resignation, were ordered to be refunded. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, while generally denying various allegations levelled by the petitioner, it is stated that the conditions referred above, are imposed as per Regulations 7 (a) and (b) of the APSRTC Employees’ (Service) Regulations, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Service Regulations’). It is apt to extract the said Regulations : “7. Provision relating to resignation, re-employment and transfer : (a) A member of a service shall if he resigns his appointment, forfeit not only the service rendered by him in the particular post held by him at the time of resignation but also all his previous service under the Corporation. (b) The re-appointment of such person to any service shall be treated in the same way as a first appointment to such service by direct recruitment and all rules governing such appointment shall apply; and on such re-appointment he shall not be entitled to count any portion of his previous service for any benefit or concession admissible under any rule or order.” 6. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Security Guard on 08.05.1981. On 13th December 1994, he has tendered resignation to the said post on personal reasons. But subsequently, when he has submitted a representation dated 4th September 1996, seeking permission for withdrawal of his resignation, though his resignation was already accepted by that time, but however, he was permitted to withdraw his resignation by the Vice-Chairman of the respondent-Corporation. The said permission granted by the Vice-Chairman for withdrawal of resignation, is evident from the averments made in the counter affidavit. Though it was the case of reinstatement in view of permission granted to the petitioner for withdrawal of resignation, but however, even after collecting the benefits which were paid to him on account of his past service while reinstating him by terming such a reinstatement as a fresh appointment, the respondents have imposed conditions under Regulations 7 (a) and (b) of the Service Regulations. It is true that under Regulation 7 (a), a member of the service, if resigns from appointment, shall forfeit not only the service rendered by him in the particular post, but also all his previous service in the Corporation. Under Regulation 7 (b), the re-appointment of such person shall be treated in the same way as a first appointment into such service by direct recruitment and on such re-appointment, he shall not be entitled to count any portion of his previous service. But at the same time, it is to be noticed here that when the petitioner was permitted for withdrawal of his resignation, his re-appointment should not have been termed as a fresh appointment. Otherwise, even if it is to be treated as a fresh appointment, there is no reason in collecting the earlier benefits, which were extended to him on account of his earlier service. While imposing the condition for paying back of the amounts which were paid to him, it is not permissible for the respondents to impose the conditions under Regulations 7 (a) and (b). These Regulations apply only in cases where a member of service is re-appointed as a fresh candidate, but not on account of withdrawal of resignation. When the petitioner was reinstated, he was about 51 years of old, and since the age of superannuation is 58 years, he must have been retired from service. As the petitioner was not given fresh appointment, the condition imposed under Condition No.1 in the order dated 10.09.1997, depriving him of earlier service, is to be declared illegal. But at the same time, I do not find any illegality in imposing Condition No.2, treating the service of petitioner as a fresh appointee from the date of re- appointment. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, in view of declaration that Condition No.1 imposed in the order dated 10.09.1997 is illegal, the petitioner is entitled for refund of the amounts which he was asked to deposit at the time of his re- appointment pursuant to the order dated 10.09.1997. It is also stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that at the time of re-appointment, the petitioner has refunded an amount of Rs.33,754-63 on account of gratuity, Rs.21,284-00 on account of Provident Fund, Rs.7,244-00 on account of Staff Retirement Benefit Scheme and Rs.11,333-00 on account of Staff Benevolent Thrift Fund Scheme. In view of the reasons stated above, the respondents are directed to verify the amounts which were paid back by the petitioner at the time of his reinstatement, and as the said amounts were collected without any authority of law and jurisdiction, respondents are directed to refund the said amounts with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit made by the petitioner till the date of payment. The respondents shall take steps and pay the amounts due to the petitioner as per the directions referred above, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Subject to above directions, the writ petition is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 1st December 2008 ajr