D.Satish v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.26224 OF 2018 Dated:30.07.2018 Between:

D.Satish, S/o. Suryanarayana, Aged 39 years, Occ: Driver/APSRTC, D.No.28-3-17, Totavari Street, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District .. Petitioner And The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep., by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents The Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.26224 OF 2018 ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation appearing for the respondents.

2.

Petitioner was terminated from service by order dated 13.02.2008. On his review, the Regional Manager, East Godavari Region, the 2nd respondent, passed orders on 17.10.2015 modifying the punishment of termination and directing to reengage the petitioner into service as afresh contract driver without continuity of service. In this Writ Petition, petitioner seeks to grant the following relief:

"... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declare inaction of the 2nd respondent for not regularizing his services in the cadre of contract driver from the date of termination as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the directions of this Court in the common orders passed by this Court on 29.02.2012 in W.P.No.2786 of 2012 and batch and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner forthwith and pass such other orders or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3.

As seen from the prayer sought, petitioner is seeking a declaration thamt not regularizing his services in the cadre of contract driver from the date of termination as contrary to the decision of this Court in common order dated 29.02.2012 passed in W.P.No.2786 of 2012 and batch.

4.

As noticed above, the order of the revisional authority is to treat the petitioner as a fresh contract driver without continuity of service. This order is not under challenge. Therefore, no relief as sought for by the petitioner can be granted in view of the order of the revisional authority by which he was appointed as a fresh contract driver. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit. 5.

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed in limini. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, filed in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

____________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J Date:30.07.2018 KH