The District Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corpn. Bhimavaram Depot, Bhimavaram, A.P. Vs. N.Lakshminar
EmailAppeal: Civil appeal No. 886 of 1980
Petitioner: The District Manager, A.P.State Road Transport Corpn. Bhimavaram Depot, Bhimavaram, A.P.
Respondent: N.Lakshminarayana and Anr.
Apeal: Civil appeal No. 886 of 1980
Judges: KULDIP SINGH & YOGESHWAR DAYAL,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 30, 1994
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transferred Corporation Employers (classification, Control & Appeal) Regulations 1967- Regulation 18 and 20 were amended w.e.f. 12th September 1977 deleting regulation 20(3)- High Court judgment sanctioning full remuneration for period of suspension was held to be based on the unamended Regulations- Amended regulations have considerably changed the legal position and High Court judgment is not a precedent on the interpretation of the amended regulation and is no longer good law.
Held:
It is not disputed that Regulations 18 & 20 of the Regulations were amended with effect from September 12, 1977. As a result of the amendment Regulation 20(3) of the Regulations was deleted. It is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the High Court judgment because the amended Regulations have considerably changed the legal position. In our view the High Court judgment is not a precedent on the interpretation of the amended Regulations. Even otherwise in view of our judgment in civil appeals arising out of special leave petitions (C) Nos. 15348-49/93 and 17932-34/93 dated March 30, 1994 the impugned judgment of the High Court is no longer a good law. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
KULDIP SINGH, J.:
1. N. Lakshminarayana, respondent in the appeal herein, was working as an Assistant Mechanical Supervisor with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation). He was placed under suspension with effect from October 21, 1974 on the basis of the allegation that he was found stealing certain articles belonging to the Corporation. The respondent was tried by the criminal court for the offence of theft and was finally acquitted by the court on March 17, 1976. During the period when the criminal proceedings were in progress, the respondent was also charge-sheeted and a departmental inquiry was held against him. It is not necessary for us to go into the factual-details any more and suffice it to say that the respondent was finally reinstated into service. The question for consideration before the High Court was whether the respondent was entitled to the payment of full remunerations during the period when he remained under suspension as a result of the criminal trial and the departmental enquiry. The High Court answered the question in the affirmative and in favour of the respondent. This appeal by way of special leave petition is against the judgment of the High Court.
2. On the interpretation of Regulations 18, 20 & 21 of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 (the Regulations) the High Court came to the conclusion that the respondent was entitled to the full remuneration for the period during which the respondent remained under suspension. It is not disputed that Regulations 18 & 20 of the Regulations were amended with effect from September 12, 1977. As a result of the amendment Regulation 20(3) of the Regulations was deleted. Since the suspension-period of the respondent was prior to September 12, 1977 – the date of the amendment of the Regulations – the High Court based its judgment on the unamended Regulations. It is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the High Court judgment because the amended Regulations have considerably changed the legal position. In our view the High Court judgment is not a precedent on the interpretation of the amended Regulations. Even otherwise in view of our judgment in civil appeals arising out of special leave petitions (C) Nos. 15348-49/93 and 17932-34/93 dated March 30, 1994 the impugned judgment of the High Court is no longer a good law.
3. Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant has fairly stated that the corporation shall in any case, comply with the judgment of the High Court and pay the remunerations granted to the respondent if not already paid. We dispose of the civil appeal in the above terms. No costs.
1. N. Lakshminarayana, respondent in the appeal herein, was working as an Assistant Mechanical Supervisor with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation). He was placed under suspension with effect from October 21, 1974 on the basis of the allegation that he was found stealing certain articles belonging to the Corporation. The respondent was tried by the criminal court for the offence of theft and was finally acquitted by the court on March 17, 1976. During the period when the criminal proceedings were in progress, the respondent was also charge-sheeted and a departmental inquiry was held against him. It is not necessary for us to go into the factual-details any more and suffice it to say that the respondent was finally reinstated into service. The question for consideration before the High Court was whether the respondent was entitled to the payment of full remunerations during the period when he remained under suspension as a result of the criminal trial and the departmental enquiry. The High Court answered the question in the affirmative and in favour of the respondent. This appeal by way of special leave petition is against the judgment of the High Court.
2. On the interpretation of Regulations 18, 20 & 21 of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 (the Regulations) the High Court came to the conclusion that the respondent was entitled to the full remuneration for the period during which the respondent remained under suspension. It is not disputed that Regulations 18 & 20 of the Regulations were amended with effect from September 12, 1977. As a result of the amendment Regulation 20(3) of the Regulations was deleted. Since the suspension-period of the respondent was prior to September 12, 1977 – the date of the amendment of the Regulations – the High Court based its judgment on the unamended Regulations. It is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the High Court judgment because the amended Regulations have considerably changed the legal position. In our view the High Court judgment is not a precedent on the interpretation of the amended Regulations. Even otherwise in view of our judgment in civil appeals arising out of special leave petitions (C) Nos. 15348-49/93 and 17932-34/93 dated March 30, 1994 the impugned judgment of the High Court is no longer a good law.
3. Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant has fairly stated that the corporation shall in any case, comply with the judgment of the High Court and pay the remunerations granted to the respondent if not already paid. We dispose of the civil appeal in the above terms. No costs.
