A.K. Reddy Vs. Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Nellore and Another

A.K. Reddy vs Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Nellore and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Mar 15, 2000

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/434211

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/434211
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: S.R. Nayak, J.
Decided On: Mar 15, 2000
Case Number: WP No. 12760 of 1999
Subject: Constitution;Service

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service - recovery of incentive - Family Planning Incentive Scheme -disentitlement for incentive under Scheme in case of remarriage - petitioner got remarried and child born out of second marriage - demand for recovery of incentive received after remarriage - held, corporation entitled to recover family planning inc...

Key legal issue: Constitution;Service

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

A.K. Reddy

Advocate Mr. P. Venkateswarlu, Adv.

Respondent

Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Nellore and Another

Advocate Mr. C.V. Ramula, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In: 2000(2)ALD818; 2000(2)ALT214

Excerpt

.....to person entitled to rent and proper maintenance of accounts of such deposits under sub-rules (4) and (5) of rule 5 are solely dependent on compliance with sub-rule (3) by the tenant. the payment or deposit of rent under section 11 read with sub-rule (6) of rule 5 arises only in respect of a tenant who did not take recourse to section 8 or section 9 before an application for eviction has been made against him in respect of any rent in arrears by date of that application, whereas in respect of rent that becomes subsequently due since date of application for eviction, the tenant is bound to pay or deposit regularly until termination of proceedings in order to enable him to contest the application. any violation of section 11(1) to (3) and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 makes the tenant liable for the adverse consequences under sub-section (4) of section 11. thus, the provisions of section 11 and sub-rule (6) of rule 5 are intended only to ensure the payment and deposit of rent including arrears during pendency and till termination of proceedings for eviction. the forfeiture of right of tenant to contest in case of default is to protect the rights and interests of landlord pending such an application for eviction, but not to confer any right on tenant to plead that all defaults committed by him prior to application for eviction can never be considered wilful, if he were to deposit all arrears of rent due within fifteen days under rule 5(6) read with sub-section (1) of section 11. the object and effect of section 11 and sub-rules (1) to (5) to rule 5, the former being for protection of landlord during pendency of eviction proceedings and the later being for protection of tenant to avoid any liability for eviction on ground of wilful default. consequently, while taking recourse to section 8 by tenant is optional, once that option is exercised, compliance with sub-rules (1) to (5) of rule 5 becomes mandatory in the sense that any non-compliance with prescribed procedure will..........on the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the apsrtc would support the impugned action.4. the only point that arises for consideration is, whether the petitioner could legally draw family planning incentive increment even after he contracted the second marriage on 23-5-1991. iftheanswer is positive the impugned order should go, and on the other hand, if the answer is negative, on exception can be taken to the impugned action.5. it is trite to state that but for the scheme framed by the management of apsrtc to provide family planning incentive increment to its employees by issuing administrative guidelines and instructions, no employee of the corporation, as a matter of right, would have legally asserted the right to such increment. if that is so, the right to receive incentive increment should be worked out within the parameters of the scheme framed by the management of apsrtc. in the impugned order as well as in the counter filed by the respondents, it is stated that according to the scheme envisaged in circular no.pd-115 of 3993, dated 15-12-1993 of the chief manger (personnel), hyderabad, an employee to whom the family incentive increment is granted, after remarriage, for any reason, the benefit of incentive increment so granted shall be withdrawn from the date of such remarriage. therefore, the petitioner after 23-5-1991 cannot claim the incentive increment as a matter of right de hors the scheme. secondly, after contractingremarriage, one more child is born to the couple out of the second wedlock thereby the petitioner as on today is having three children. on that count also, in terms of the scheme, the petitioner is not entitled to family planning incentive increment. therefore, i do not find any illegality or unreasonableness on the part of the first respondent in declining to continue the payment of incentive increment to the petitioner. similarly, since payment made to the petitioner during the period from 23-5-1991 to 31-5-1998 was in breach.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. The petitioner, who is currently serving as driver in theestablishment of the APSRTC being aggrieved by the Officer Order No.El/ 367(2)/98-NLR-I, dated 15-4-1999 of the Depot Manager, Nellore-I-the first respondent herein directing recovery of a sum of Rs.8,434-30 ps. from the salary of the petitioner on the ground that family planning incentive increment was wrongly paid to the petitioner for the period from 23-5-1991 to 31-5-1998, has filed this writ petition assailing the validity of the same.

2. The circumstances that led to filing of the writ petition may be stated briefly as under: The petitioner while serving as Driver submitted a representation stating that his wife underwent tubectomy operation on 14-9-1990 after giving birth to two children and requested the management to grant family planning incentive increment as per the scheme framed by the management. Acting on the representation of the petitioner, he was sanctioned one incentive increment with effect from 1-10-1990. The petitioner's wife Smt. K. Vijayamma died in an accident in the month of November, 1990. Thereafterwards, the petitioner contracted second marriage with Smt A Sridevi on 23-5-1991. It appears that the petitioner informed the management about his contracting of second marriage on 23-5-1991. Out of the second wedlock a child was born. Thus, the petitioner has three children, two children out of the first wedlock and one child out of the second wedlock. However, it appears that despite this development, the petitioner was allowed to draw family planning incentive increment upto 31-5-1998 and thereafterwards, he was prevented from drawing the above increment.

3. The only contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order of the first respondent is that the management having permitted the petitioner to draw family planning incentive increment even after the petitionercontracting second marriage on 23-5-1991 and even after the petitioner got one more child out of the second wedlock, it is totally unreasonable on the part of the fist respondent to withhold the payment of family planning incentive increment, and at any rate, it is ex facie unreasonable to direct recovery of incentive increment already paid to the petitioner during the period from 23-5-1991 to 31-5-1998. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC would support the impugned action.

4. The only point that arises for consideration is, whether the petitioner could legally draw family planning incentive increment even after he contracted the second marriage on 23-5-1991. Iftheanswer is positive the impugned order should go, and on the other hand, if the answer is negative, on exception can be taken to the impugned action.

5. It is trite to state that but for the scheme framed by the management of APSRTC to provide family planning incentive increment to its employees by issuing administrative guidelines and instructions, no employee of the Corporation, as a matter of right, would have legally asserted the right to such increment. If that is so, the right to receive incentive increment should be worked out within the parameters of the scheme framed by the management of APSRTC. In the impugned order as well as in the counter filed by the respondents, it is stated that according to the scheme envisaged in Circular No.PD-115 of 3993, dated 15-12-1993 of the Chief Manger (Personnel), Hyderabad, an employee to whom the family incentive increment is granted, after remarriage, for any reason, the benefit of incentive increment so granted shall be withdrawn from the date of such remarriage. Therefore, the petitioner after 23-5-1991 cannot claim the incentive increment as a matter of right de hors the scheme. Secondly, after contractingremarriage, one more child is born to the couple out of the second wedlock thereby the petitioner as on today is having three children. On that count also, in terms of the scheme, the petitioner is not entitled to family planning incentive increment. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or unreasonableness on the part of the first respondent in declining to continue the payment of incentive increment to the petitioner. Similarly, since payment made to the petitioner during the period from 23-5-1991 to 31-5-1998 was in breach of the scheme and consequently unauthorised, there is nothing wrong on the part of the first respondent now to recover the unlawful gain made by the petitioner-workman.

6. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 2000 Same Parties A.K. Reddy vs Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Nellore and Another Same Subject Constitution;Service Same Judge S.R. Nayak, J.

Constitution;Service