STATE OF TELANGANA Vs. AMBAREESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents in O.A.No.5971 of 2011 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short the Tribunal) respondent No.2 filed this writ petition feeling aggrieved by the order, dated 21.11.2013, passed in the said O.A. declaring that respondent No.1 herein is entitled for all the consequential benefits including the wages/salaries for the period from 27.02.2001 to 15.10.2009.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that respondent No.1 was originally appointed as Work Inspector in 1991 on Nominal Muster Roll (NMR) basis, under the control of petitioner No.4 and worked continuously till his services were terminated on 20.04.1999. Feeling aggrieved by his discontinuance, respondent No.1 filed O.A.No.2127 of 1999 before the Tribunal. He also filed another O.A.No.1946 of 1999 for regularization. By common judgment, dated 27.02.2001, the Tribunal disposed of both the said O.As. by declaring that respondent No.1 is entitled to be regularized as Work Inspector Grade II irrespective of the vacancy and accordingly, directed the petitioners to reinstate respondent No.1 and regularize his services, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Questioning the said order, the petitioners filed W.P.No.17918 of 2001. A Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petition, by order, dated 01.04.2009, whereunder, it set aside the order, dated 27.02.2001, of the Tribunal to the extent of the relief of regularization, but, however, confirmed the said order pertaining to the reinstatement of respondent No.1 into service. It, accordingly, directed the petitioners to reinstate respondent No.1 into service within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. It needs to be mentioned at this stage that during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, respondent No.1 filed an application for an interim direction to reinstate him. In the said application, the Division Bench of this Court granted interim direction on 14.08.2007 for reinstatement of respondent No.1. As the petitioners failed to comply with the said interim order, respondent No.1 filed a contempt case. Thereafter, the petitioners filed W.V.M.P.No.705 of 2008 in the said writ petition. By an order, dated 18.06.2008, the Division Bench made interim direction granted on 14.08.2007 absolute, while dismissing the vacate stay petition. At the hearing of this writ petition, it has come out that in spite of the said order, respondent No.1 was not reinstated into service. Finally, the said writ petition was disposed of as aforementioned on 01.04.2009. More than six months after the disposal of the said writ petition, respondent No.1 was taken back as daily wage NMR worker. As respondent No.1 was not paid back wages, he was constrained to file O.A.No.5971 of 2011. The petitioners resisted the said O.A. However, the Tribunal, by the impugned order, dated 21.11.2013, allowed the O.A. by directing payment of back wages and salary to respondent No.1 from 27.02.2001 to 15.10.2009, the period during which he was out of employment. Feeling aggrieved by this order, this writ petition is filed by the respondents in the said O.A.

(3.) We have heard the learned Government Pleader for Services (TS) appearing for the petitioners and Mr.P.Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1.