G.S. Raju, E. 750661, v. The A.P.S.R.T.C,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.8151 of 2002 ORDER:

1.

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the service of the petitioners on completion of 240 days of service on par with the similarly situated candidates, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to direct the respondents herein to regularize the services of the petitioners on par with their colleagues w.e.f. 31.12.1999 and to extend all the benefits.

2.

Heard Sri S.M. Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3.

It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed as drivers in the respondent-Corporation in the year 1998. As per the policy of the respondent-Corporation, they are entitled for regularization on completion of 240 days of service. The services of some of the similarly situated persons were regularized. But the request of the petitioners to regularize their services on par with their colleagues Ch. Markandeyulu, K. Gani Raju and G. Ramu, was not considered. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed.

4.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to an identical case in A.Rajeswar vs. Managing Director, APSRTC & Ors (W.P.No.24363 of 1998, dated 1.9.1998), wherein this Court has considered and adjudicated the issue as to whether the casual workers are entitled for regularization on completion of 240 days, and allowed the writ petition by following the judgment reported in APSRTC v. P.T.Rao1, wherein Division Bench of this Court declared that the workmen are entitled for regularization. 5.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the case of the petitioners was considered for regularization as and when vacancies arose and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for regularization on par with the above named colleagues, as there were no vacancies as on that date.

6.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel on either side, this Court is of the considered view that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment in A.Rajeswar vs. Managing Director, APSRT & Ors (W.P.No.24363 of 1998, dated 1.9.1998) and therefore, this writ petition can be disposed of in terms of the said judgment.

1 1998(2) ALT 47

7.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment rendered in W.P.No.24363 of 1998, dated 1.9.1998, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services on par with their colleagues w.e.f. 31.12.1999, without any back wages and other monetary benefits.

However, the date of their appointment should be considered for the purpose of fixation of pay and pensionary benefits. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

__________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J Date: 06/11/2018 Nn

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.8151 of 2002 6.11.2018 Nn