THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.30044 OF 2012
ORDER:
Heard Mr. S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Srihari, learned Standing Counsel for APS RTC.
2. The petitioner seeks a direction to regularize his services on par with his colleagues forthwith along with all consequential benefits.
3. It is the contention of the petitioner that though he was selected and appointed as Driver in the existing vacancies of Kurnool region in the year 1996 and his services was regularized in the year 1997. The petitioner was terminated without conducting proper enquiry vide proceedings dated 27.03.1998 on the ground of non-genuine Driving License. The petitioner filed W.P.No. 23927 of 2005 and this Court passed order dated 22.10.2005 directed the Corporation to consider his case for appointment. Accordingly he was reinstated into service. The further contention of the petitioner is that his colleagues were appointed along with him and their services were regularized in the year 1998 and drawing more than Rs. 12,000/- as basic pay and whereas, the petitioner is getting only Rs. 8,000/- as basic pay only, as his services was regularized in the year 2010 only instead of 1998, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the petitioner sought for a direction to reinstate him into service with continuity of service and to regularize his services on part with his colleagues with all attendant benefits.
4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/ corporation has opposed for absorption with retrospective effect and placed reliance on the The Divisional Manager, APSRTC and Others Vs. P. Lakshmoji Rao and others1. Wherein, the Apex Court, after elaborate discussion, held that daily wagers have no right to claim regularization from the date of initial appointment itself especially in the absence of any rule. However, if the establishment allowed some such directions to operate and became final and any of such delay wager junior to others in the relevant seniority list of the Division/ Region have got the benefit of seniority and regularization by virtue of the such judgment that have become final, then the same shall be given to those senior to them also.
5. Mr. S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record the order of this Court dated 03.11.2021 passed in W.P.Nos. 33735 of 2010 and batch, which is squarely covered and requested to pass similar order in this writ petition also. Mr. N.Srihari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents conceded the same.
6. In view of the above legal and factual aspects and also considering the order of this Court dated 03.11.2021 passed in W.P.Nos. 33735 of 2010 and batch, the petitioner has no right to claim regularization from the date of his initial appointment. However, if any conductors and drivers juniors to the petitioner have got the benefit of seniority and regularization, the later are also entitled to get the same benefit on the same principle. 1 2004(2) SCC 433
7. With the above direction and observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
___________________________________ DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO Dated: 14.03.2022.
KK THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.30044 OF 2012 Date: 14.03.2022 KK