E. Sadanandam v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport -Corporation,

f t'

l [ 3304 ] tN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) r$ +, f THURSDAY, THE TWENW FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ,i'

*, t PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 26066 OF 2006 .t {t Between:

E. Sadanandam, S/o. Komaraiah, aged 43 years, Occ : Shramik, E.No. 342879, Rlo. Hanamkonda, Warangal District.

.....PETITIONER AND f Andhra Pradesh State Road TransP, Director, Musheerabad, HYderabadort -Corporation, Rep. by its Managing 20.

2. The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport -Corporation, Warangal.

'r'

.....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be .i.

pleased to call for the records from the 2nd Respondent and issue an appropriate ++ writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of 2nd Respondent in not regularizing services of petitioner on par with his juniors from the date of his initial appointment i.e, 13-1-1992 but regularizing from 1-8-1996 as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, +r discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, and grant all consequential benefits.

ri'$ !.A.NO:1 OF 2006 (WPMP.NO:33484 OF 2006) i.

petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to 't s direct the 2nd Respondent to regularize services petitioner on par with his juniors

whose services were regularized from the date of their initial appointment '1.

tt forthwith pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO ,t {t Counsel for the Respondents : SRI N.CHANDRA SEKHAR The Court made the following ORDER 't *, 't $ ,i # 'I * 'i * .t.

tb .I & ,i 1r

{ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: "...isslte an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 2nd Respondent in not regularizing services of the petitioner on par with his juniors from the date of his initial appointment i.e., 13.1.1992, but regularizing from 1.8.1996 as illegal, unjust, contrary to law arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 74, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and grant all consequential benefits and pass..." 2.

Heard Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Chandra Shekar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the material on record. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent-corporation had regularized the services of the petitioner's juniors in November, L992. The petitibner has made several representations to the respondent authorities requesting them to regularize his services with effect from the date of his initial appointment i.e., from 13.01.1992 instead of 01.08.1996 on par with his juniors whose services were regularized from the date of their initial appointment.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had submitted a representation, dated 24.04.20A6, which ,

rl was acknowledged by respondent No.2 on 15.05.2006. However, the ^, respondent authorities have not considered the same till date. 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner died on 10.05.2009 and his legal representatives are eligible to get benefits of the deceased employee. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Dharam Singh and Others v. State of tlttar Pradesh and Anothef, wherein at para No.19 at clause (iv) it is held that "fn the case of appellant No.5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgment".

6.

Learned counsel for the respondents has produced death certificate of the petitioner and did not dispute the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

7.

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the legal representatives of the petitioner to make a fresh representation within a period of four (4) weeks and upon such representation being made ' Ciuil ;\ppeal No.8558 of20l8 \

j by the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, preferably, within a period of eight (B) weeks from the date of such representation, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible for any benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

?or-^."rAVANt swAMY TANT REGIS //TRUE COPYII T OFFICER To -Corporation, -Corporation, {r Warangal.

3. One Ce to SR! A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO, Advocate [oPUC]

4. One CC to SRI N.CHANDRA SEKHAR, Advocate [OPUCI

5. Two CD Copies SA BS :, ,i 4,

,f a HIGH COURT ;

DATED:21I0812025 !< HE S ir,, - {l b rt i,;' 1? $[ M ORoeR t i), \t\ 'z/ ",.4'rC.i'i lr WP.No.26066 of 2006 DISPOSING OF THE W.P n, WITHOUT COSTS.

6k v