Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
G. Bala Swamy, E425449, vs The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep By Its ... on 14 March, 2022
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.
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
