Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
This Writ Petition Is Filed Under ... vs Union Of India And Others1 Which Is Not ... on 1 April, 2022
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.5368 of 2015
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
".....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in removing the petitioner from service on the allegation of unauthorized absence of duties, vide Proceedings E1/1(35)2010- TVR, dated 31.03.2012, which was confirmed by ther respondents 2 and 3 vide Proceedings No. TY/19(73)/14, Dy.CTM(MTM), Dt.19.05.2014 and the Proceedings No. PA/19(402)/2014-RM-K, Dt.06.09.2014 as highhanded and arbitrary action, contrary to the circular instructions, unconstitutional and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice with a consequential benefits forthwith and pass such other orders."
2. The Claim of the petitioner is that she joined as a Conductor at TVR Depot on 22.09.2008 on contract basis and later she was regularized as Conductor, Grade-II in the same Depot w.e.f 14.10.2010. On 06.01.2009 she was performing 07.45 hrs Nuzvid special off duty and completed three trips on that day and while they are operating the last trip and entering into Vissannapet Village, the driver hit the bus to a divider in a rash and negligent manner, due to which she sustained grievous bleeding injuries to the head and went to unconsciousness, as she was dragged by the bus for about 20 ft., from the accident spot. Immediately she was shifted to nearby hospital, where she had undergone surgery to her head with 12 stitches and undergone treatment for about two months without any salary. Unfortunately again on 18.11.2009 while she was performing 06.30 hrs Khamma duty, the bus was over crowed with passengers. The driver swerved the bus to the left side margin to give the way to 2 opposite coming car, but the drive lost his control, resulting the bus was capsized and nearly 15 to 20 passengers in the bus were received injuries and the petitioner was received a serious injury on her spine. Meantime some tumors were developed in her bosoms and on advise of doctors she undergone surgery. Due to unhealthy condition she unable to produce sick extension leave from 28.09.2010 to 11.10.2010 within time. Consequently the Depot Manager removed the petitioner from the services, treating the said period as absent as per proceedings dated 31.03.2012, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence she questioned the action of the respondents and sought for a direction as stated supra.
3. Heard Mr. S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contended that in view of two accidents occurred on 06.01.2009 and also 18.11.2009 while she was on duty due to negligent driving of the driver of the bus she sustained grivious injuries to his head and various injuries over her body. Consequently she was undergone surgery as per advise of the doctors and health is badly damaged. Therefore, she unable to applied leave from 28.09.2010 to 11.10.2010. In view of the same, the Depot Manager treated her leave as absent and removed her from the services without conducting any enquiry, which is prima facie illegal, arbitrary. She is starving for existence and suffering pain from the injuries sustained in the accidents. Therefore, she requested this Court to set aside the impugned proceedings dated 31.03.2012. 3
5. The respondents filed counter denying all material averments made in the affidavit, inter alia contended that the petitioner has made review petition to the RM/KR/VJA against the proceedings of DM/TVR to consider her case where upon the RM/ VJA perused the entire matter and held that there are no valid reasons to consider her reive petition and to interfere with the orders passed by the DM/TVR rejected the review petition on merits.
6. It is further contended that leave card also shows that the petitioner was absent for a period of 659 days and LWP 217 days from 01.09.2010 to 16.03.2012. Besides the same, it is observed that during the first acciedent which occurred on 06.01.2009 the petitioner availed leave from 08.01.2009 to 16.02.2009 i.e 40 days and during second accident i.e on 18.11.2009 the petitioner availed 3 days i.e from 20.11.2009 to 22.11.2009. Thus the petitioner committed irregularity in attending her duties and causing inconvenience to the corporation.
7. It is further contended that the petitioner made a request to settle her claims and addressed a letter dated 12.04.2012 to the 4th respondent as she is removed from service by the 4th respondent on the ground that the petitioner is not well and unable to attend the duty. Accordingly the respondent authorities settled claim of the petitioner. Further a Review Petition was filed and same was rejected vide Proceedings No. PA/19(402)/2014-RM/K, dated 06.09.2014 wherein it specificially stated as follows:
"Further the petitioner had also submitted a representation on 12.04.2012 to the Tiruvuru Depot Authorities stating that she wants to settle her settlement benefits as she did not want to continue in APSRTC due to her heath condition. Basing on her representation her settlement have been made and paid SRBS, PF & SBT by 4 way of D.D.No. 58836, 236684 & 869976 on 20.07.2012, 31.07.2012 & 04.08.2012 respectively by the Depot Authorities".
8. Therefore as seen from the material record produced by the petitioner i.e Proceedings No. PA/19(402)/2014-RM/K, dated 06.09.2014, the respondent corporation settled the claim of the petitioner and on the ground the review petition also rejected. Once settlement made between parties and finanlized, question of preferring writ petition by exercising the power under Artcle 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. But the petitioner again approached this Court seeking to reinstate her into service, which is not permissible under law. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Zaheer Hussain Vs. Union of India and others1 which is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Since the petitioner made a request to settle the claim on the ground of her ill health, the respondent corporation settled her claim in full and final settlement and she received all benefits. In view of the above said aspect, the above decision is not applicable to the present case.
9. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, this Court concluded that the petitioner on one hand received benefits and settled the claim by way of consent given by her and on the other hand she sought for a direction to reinstate the petitioner into service with back wages is highly illegal and unwarranted.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 1 1999(9) SCC 86 5 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
__________________________________ DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO Date: 01.04.2022.
KK 6 THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.5368 of 2015 Date: 01.04.2022.
KK