M.Rama Reddy, v. Depot Manager,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4473 of 2003 ORDER :

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: " ...... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in deleting the name of the petitioner from the select list of Casual Conductors under proceedings No.A2/255(10/2000 RMA, dated 19.01.2001 passed by the 2nd respondent and of 3rd Respondent proceedings No.PA/19(200)/2002 DVM-A., dated 28.10.2002 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the name of the petitioner into select list of Casual Conductors of Ananthapur Region forthwith ......"

2.

When the matter came up for hearing, both the learned counsel submit that pursuant to the interim order dated 17.04.2003 in WPMP.No.5899 of 2003 in W.P.No.4473 of 2003, the petitioner was re-engaged into service as a Casual Conductor on par with others and he was working as such from 2003 onwards. In that regard, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation has produced a copy of the proceedings No.P1/255(1)/09-KDR, dated 22.07.2009, issued by the Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kadiri, regularizing the services of the petitioner along with others.

ARR,J W.P.No.4473 of 2003 3.

However, learned counsel for the petitioner expression apprehension that the respondents may take the view that such regularization of the services of the petitioner is during pendency of writ petition only and may delete the name of the petitioner.

4.

A perusal of the proceedings dated 22.07.2009 shows that the Conductors, who were engaged on daily wage basis, are decasualized and appointed as Conductors, but the said order does not indicate that it is during the pendency of writ petition only. In view of the proceedings dated 22.07.2009 issued by the respondent-Corporation, since the grievance of the petitioner is redressed, deleting the name of the petitioner does not arise.

5.

Recording the said submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation and in terms of the proceedings dated 22.07.2009 issued by the respondentCorporation, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. 6.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 24.07.2017.

Msr

ARR,J W.P.No.4473 of 2003 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4473 of 2003 24.07.2017 Msr