Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M. Kasaiah vs V.C. M.D., Apsrtc, Vijayawada 2 ... on 2 March, 2022
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.28007 of 2017
ORDER :
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India claiming the following relief:-
"to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring
the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services
and to make entry in the service book of the petitioner in terms
orders passed in W.A.No 1248/97 dated 10.2.1998, as illegal,
arbitrary, unreasonable and violation of principles of natural
justice and apart from violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents
to make entry in the service book of the petitioner in terms
orders passed in W.A.No.1248/97, dated 10.2.1998 for
regularizing the services with all consequential and attendant
benefits and to pass such other order or orders ......"
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as
Conductor in the respondent corporation in the year 1990, and
at present he is working at 2nd respondent Depot at Udayagiri,
SPSR Nellore District with utmost satisfaction of his superiors.
Aggrieved by non-considering his case for regularizing the
service as per rules after completion of 240 days from the date
of initial appointment, he sought direction to the respondents
to regularize his service, the petitioner filed W.P.No.971 of
1997 before this Court and this Court vide order dated
03.02.2017 gave a clear direction basing on the identical
W.P.No.8070 of 1990 dated 16.04.1994, this was also disposed
of as per Section 25-B of Industrial Dispute Act, which reads
as under:
" ....That the direction is that instead of regularization from the date
of initial appointment, the regularization was to be construed from the date
of continuous appointment as defined under Section 25-B of Industrial
Disputes Act (I/.. In the circumstances, a Writ shall be issued to
regularize the services of the petitioner herein in the post of Conductor
Grade-II reckoning the continuous service of the petitioner as envisaged
under Section 25-B of Industrial Dispute Act for the purpose of all benefits
in the service.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs."
It is submitted that being not satisfied with the above
order, the respondents therein approached the appellate
jurisdiction of a Division Bench of this Court and filed W.A
No.1248 of 1997. The Division Bench of this Court vide order
dated 10.02.1998, modifying the order of the learned Single
Judge except the claim of the workmen regarding arrears and
back wages is concerned therein and directed to regularize the
services in phased manner. it is submitted that on receipt of
the order in the W.A.No.1248 of 1997 the respondents herein
supposed to implement the same in a reasonable time granted
in the writ petition or as per the vacancy of Grade II Conductor
posts and they are bound to issue proper instructions to their
subordinates to give the benefit of the order in W.A.No.1248 of
1997. But the respondents have not communicated to the
petitioner in any manner.
It is stated that as no notice in Writ Appeal received by
this Court, the petitioner filed an application before the
respondents under RTI Act, 2005 on 22.08.2016 requesting to
furnish the copies of the W.A.No.1248 of 1997 including the
order copies in other cases. Aggrieved by the non-furnishing
the copies, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State
Commission at Hyderabad, pending consideration. The non-
inclination to follow the directions granted in WP No.971 of
1997 and W.A.No.1248 of 1997 by the respondents, the
petitioner herein got heavy monitory loss and financial loss and
lost his seniority. Hence sought for a direction to the
respondents as prayed for.
3. Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents denying
the averments made in the petition and stated that the
petitioner was initially engaged as Casual Conductor on daily
wage basis in APSRTC with effect from 05.09.1990 and now he
is working at Udayagiri Depot but the petitioner was
undergoing punishment of 18 months of postponement of
regularization in the following disciplinary cases:
a) 6 months postponement of regulations in absenteeism
case as per the final order No.P3/1(9)/92-GDR, dated
26.10.1992.
b) 6 months postponement of regularization in
absenteeism case as per final order No.P3/1(224)/92-
GDR, dated 26.10.1992
c) 6 months postponement of regularization in
absenteeism case as per final order No.P3/1(121)/91-
GDR dated 03.01.1992.
It is further submitted that the petitioner was kept under
put off duty in dereliction of duty case vide order
No.Steno/95(3)/96-ATKR(N), dated 10.01.1996 in cash and
ticket irregularities case and subsequently he was disengaged
from service in the above case on 15.04.1996 vide proceedings
No.Steno/95(3)/96-ATKR(N), dated 15.04.1996 and thereafter
je was reinstated into service vide proceedings
No.St/19(78)/96-RM(NLR), dated 27.8.1996 of Regional
Manager, APSRTC, Nellore duly deferring his decasualization
for a period of two years without cumulative effect. In the
meanwhile, the petitioner filed an appeal in WA No.1248 of
1997 and W.P.No.971 of 1997 before this Court praying for
decasualization of his services and this Court while disposing
of the W.A.No.1248 of 1997 has ordered to the effect that the
petitioner is entitled for decasualization form the date of his
initial appointment on completion of 240 working days and the
same can be done in a phased manner but he is not eligible for
back wages. Consequent on the implementation of the above
order, the services of the petitioner were regularized w.e.f.
01.01.1999 vide office order No.P1/255(16)/95-A ATKR(N),
dated 25.5.1999.
It is further submitted that with regard to furnishing the
copies, as the matter pertains to the Legal Department of office
of VC &MD, APSRTC, Xerox copies of the applications
submitted by the counsel of the petitioner was forwarded to the
Public Information Officer and Personnel Officer-III, Vijayawada
vide Letter dated 31.08.2016, in-turn, the Public Information
Officer has forwarded the application to the Senior Law Officer,
APSRTC, Hyderabad vide letter dated 07.09.2016. on
examining the application of the above applicant, informed that
"as the documents are public documents which will available
in the Hon'ble High Court and obtain the same duly paying the
necessary fee." Instead of obtaining copies from the Hon'ble
High Court the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State
Commission and it is pending. It is further submitted that
since the services of the petitioner were decasualized w.e.f.
01.01.999 in phased manner after implementation of the
punishment awarded to him in the above mentioned
disciplinary cases, the petitioner is not eligible for any relief
and as such prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner to the counter
filed by the respondents stating that there is no any allegation
against the petitioner as on 05.06.1991 not regularizing the
petitioner. It is submitted that legal position is that on
completion of 240 working days the petitioner became entitled
for regularization but the same was not considered by the
APSRTC, which is abuse of process of law and the petitioner is
entitled to decasualization from 241st day from 05.09.1990 i.e.,
05.06.1991 is legally acceptable and with all consequential
benefits. Hence, prayed to implement the judgment of the
W.A.No.1248 of 1997 dated 09.02.1998 to the effect of its
implementation is to decasualization from the date 10.02.1998
only, but not to deny repeatedly by developing grudge against
the petitioner on his filing High Court case against the
management/Corporation. Hence, the petitioner prays to allow
the writ petition.
5. Heard Sri G.V. Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Sri P.Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel
for APSRTC appearing for the respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a Conductor since 05.09.1990 and even
completing 240 days from the date of appointment, the
respondents have not regularized the services as Conductor
Grade-II with all consequential benefits. Hence, requested this
Court to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the
petitioner in terms of orders passed in W.A.No.1248 of 1997
dated 10.02.1998.
7. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents
submits that the petitioner was initially engaged as Casual
Conductor on daily wage basis in APSRTC w.e.f. 05.09.1990
and now he is working at Udayagiri Depot but the petitioner
was undergoing punishment of 18 months of postponement of
regularization for the following disciplinary cases (a) 6 months
postponement of regulations in absenteeism case as per the
final order No.P3/1(9)/92-GDR, dated 26.10.1992; (b) 6
months postponement of regularization in absenteeism case as
per final order No.P3/1(224)/92-GDR, dated 26.10.1992 and
(c) 6 months postponement of regularization in absenteeism
case as per final order No.P3/1(121)/91-GDR dated
03.01.1992. He further submitted that the petitioner was kept
under put off duty in dereliction of duty case vide order
No.Steno/95(3)/96-ATKR(N), dated 10.01.1996 in cash and
ticket irregularities case and subsequently he was disengaged
from service in the above case on 15.04.1996 vide proceedings
No.Steno/95(3)/96-ATKR(N), dated 15.04.1996 and thereafter
he was reinstated into service vide proceedings No.St/ 19(78)/
96-RM(NLR), dated 27.8.1996 of Regional Manager, APSRTC,
Nellore duly deferring his decasualization for a period of two
years without cumulative effect. But, in the meanwhile, the
respondents-APSRTC filed an appeal in W.A.No.1248 of 1997
aggrieved by the order in W.P.No.971 of 1997 before the
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad praying for decasualization of his services and this
Court while disposing of the W.A.No.1248 of 1997 has ordered
to the effect that the petitioner is entitled for decasualization
form the date of his initial appointment on completion of 240
working days and the same can be done in a phased manner,
but he is not eligible for back wages. Consequent on the
implementation of the above order, the services of the
petitioner were regularized w.e.f. 01.01.1999 vide office order
No.P1/255(16)/95-A ATKR(N), dated 25.5.1999.
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the
case and on perusing the material available on record, it is
made clear that the respondents have considered the case of
the petitioner and he was reinstated into service vide
proceedings No.St/ 19(78)/ 96-RM(NLR), dated 27.8.1996 of
Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nellore duly deferring his
decasualization for a period of two years without cumulative
effect and consequently, the services of the petitioner were
also regularized w.e.f. 01.01.1999 vide office order
No.P1/255(16)/95-A ATKR(N), dated 25.5.1999 in a phased
manner in terms of the order dated 10.02.1998 passed by this
Court in WA No.1248 of 1997. However, the reasons stated by
the petitioner's counsel is not at all acceptable, the petitioner is
having access to obtain the copy of order of W.A.No.1248 of
1997 from the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad, but he did not made any attempts to that extent,
simply he filed a petition under RTI Act and thereafter he
approached the State Commission by explaining this delay is
not at all acceptable and not sustainable under law. The
petitioner has received the proceedings vide office order No.
No.P1/255(16)/95-A ATKR(N), dated 25.5.1999 i.e., in the year
1999 itself and alsso having knowledge about the order passed
in W.A.No.1248 of 1997 in the year 1998 itself.
9. Though the office order for regularizing the services of
the petitioner has been passed in the year 1999; the petitioner
has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the respondents
to regularize his services and to make entry in the service
book in terms of order passed in W.A.No.1248 of 1997, dated
10.02.1998, in the year 2017 and the reasons whatever
explained by the petitioner are not at all acceptable and not
sustainable under law. Hence there are no merits in the writ
petition and the same is devoid of merits and is liable to be
dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order
as to costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications
shall stand closed.
______________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 02-03-2022
Gvl
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.28007 of 2017
Date : 02.03.2022
Gvl
