APSRTC, PRESENTLY TSRTC,REPTD BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, KHAMMAM REGION AND ANOTHER Vs. T K RAO, S/O KANAKAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal arises out of order, dated 17.3.2016, in Writ Petition No.30001 of 2012.

(2.) We have heard Mr. G.Vidya Sagar, learned senior counsel and Mr. B.Mayur Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the appellants and Mr. G.Ravi Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) The respondent was a Conductor working with the appellants. By order, dated 23.02.1991, his services were terminated. He questioned his termination by raising Industrial Dispute, vide I.D.No.153 of 1991 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal (for short the Tribunal). The Tribunal by award, dated 12.01.1994, dismissed the said I.D. Assailing the said award, the respondent filed Writ Petition No.19750 of 1999. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by a learned single Judge by order, dated 02.8.2005, directing the appellants to reinstate the respondent into service as a fresh Conductor without continuity of service or any other benefits for the service rendered by him before his termination or during the period in which he was kept out of employment. The appellants have challenged the afore-mentioned order of the learned single Judge in Writ Appeal No.674 of 2006 and on 16.6.2006, they have secured interim stay of the order of the learned single Judge. This Writ Appeal came to be dismissed on 17.8.2010. However, as a result of the interim stay obtained by the appellants in the said Writ Appeal, the respondent was kept out of employment. Only by order, dated 07.12.2011, the respondent was appointed as fresh Conductor. His representation made on 14.3.2012, to relate back his date of appointment to the time of allowing of Writ Petition No.19750 of 1999, i.e., 02.8.2005, was not favourably considered by the appellants. Therefore, the respondent was constrained to file Writ Petition No.30001 of 2012, wherein he sought for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not fixing the date of his appointment with effect from the date of order, i.e., 02.8.2005, in Writ Petition No.19750 of 1999, as illegal. The respondent also sought for a consequential relief of granting him continuity of service and other benefits such as backwages with effect from 02.8.2005. After hearing both sides, the learned single Judge has allowed the said Writ Petition by directing the appellants to treat the respondents appointment as dating back to 02.8.2005. It is this order, which is assailed in the present Writ Appeal.