D. Sadanandam, v. The Telangana State Road Trarieport Corporation,

[ 3303 ] HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,'THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J, SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 22642 OF 2016 Between:

D. Sadanandam, S/o. Lingamurthy, Aged about 40 years, Driver (E.323621), Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Korutla Bus Depot, Karimnagar District, Telangana State.

...PETITIONER AND The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State. The Dy. Chief Traffic Manger, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Karimnagar District, Telangana State.

The Depot Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Korutla Bus Depot, Karimnagar District, Telangana State. ...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 pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent No.2 in not ordering re-engagement with continuity of service of the petitioner as contract Driver is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable as the termination of the petitioner is against to procedure and violation of respondent corporation circulars and consequently direct the respondents to treat 2nd respondent proceedings, dt_ 23-08-2013 as reinstatement of the petitioner as Driver with continuity of service, attendant benefits and with all consequential service benefits including effecting the date of regularization.

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 27850 OF 2016) 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 direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for regularization of his services by treating the respondent No.2 proceedings. dt. 23-08-2013 as re-engagement with continuity of service with all consequential service benefits including effecting the date of regularizationCounsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.VENKATESHWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI THOOM SRINIVAS, SC FOR TSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No. 22642 of 2016 ORDER:

When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondents submits that the issue raised in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1g3 of 2022, dated, 15.o3.2022.

2'

In view of the principles laid down in the above said judgment, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought in this Writ Petition.

J Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

SD/- P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAIIBA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,/ SECTION drHCeR //TRUE COPYII To, One CC to SRt P.VENKATESHWAR RAO, Advocate tOpUCl One CC to SRt THOOM SR|NIVAS, SC FOR TSRTC tOpUCl Two CD Copies BSR GJP g

HIGH COURT DATED: 1911012023 i\.fE* CF I '1..

1 \\\ .S t; 'r o c(l:r \ ._ -.-, -l u ,..

i'

ORDER

WP.No.22642 of 2016 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS rA(A'

\9W-- 4r.W