WP/174/2004 of E.Venkatesham, s/o E.Sudershan, Vs The Regional Manager, APSRTC, on 31 December 2009

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO.174 OF 2004

DATED 31[ST] DECEMBER, 2009

BETWEEN:

E.Venkatesham and others

A n d

… Petitioners

The Regional Manager,APSRTC, Medak Region,Sanga Reddy, Medak District,and another.

…Respondents

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICESANJAY KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO.174 OF 2004O R D E R

The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the AndhraPradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) in not grantingthem the benefit of regularization of their services from the date of theirinitial engagement. They seek a direction to the APSRTC to regularizetheir services with effect from the said date with all consequentialbenefits.

The petitioners claim to have been engaged as Casual Labourin the service of the APSRTC in the year 1986. While so, they weredisengaged from service in 1989 constraining them to approach thisCourt by way of W.P.No.16862 of 1989. Pursuant to the interim orderspassed therein they were continued in service. The writ petition wasdisposed of by order dated 29.09.1998 taking note of the fact that thepetitioners were being continued in service and directing the APSRTCto continue them in service as long as vacancies existed. This Courtfurther directed that any retrenchment or termination of their servicesshould be in accordance with law. It is the case of the petitioners thattwo other casual labour, who were in fact junior to them and who weresimilarly disengaged from service, filed W.P.No.17865 of 1989 whichwas disposed of by order dated 05.03.1997. By the said order, thisCourt took note of the fact that the two casual labour were continued in service as per the interim orders in the writ petition and directed thatany displacement should be only on the basis of ‘last-come-first go’principle.

Pursuant to the order dated 05.03.1997 passed inW.P.No.17865 of 1989, the APSRTC issued proceedings dated14.07.1997 appointing the petitioners therein as cleaners on regularbasis with effect from 05.03.1997, being the date of the order in the writpetition. However, similar benefit was not extended to the petitionersherein though they were covered by an identical order inW.P.No.16862 of 1989. It appears that they again approached thisCourt by way of W.P.No.14985 of 1999 in this regard and by interimorder dated 18.07.2002, this Court directed the APSRTC to passappropriate orders for appointing the petitioners herein on regularbasis. Pursuant to the said interim order, the APSRTC issuedproceedings dated 05.02.2003 appointing the petitioners as Shramikswith immediate effect i.e. from the date of the proceedings.

The grievance canvassed in the present writ petition is withregard to the discrimination shown to the petitioners in so far as thedate of their appointment is concerned. Sri J.M.Naidu, learnedcounsel for the petitioners, pointed out that the juniors of the petitionerswho were covered by the identical order dated 05.03.1997 inW.P.No.17865 of 1989 were given appointment on regular basis witheffect from the date of the order, i.e., 05.03.1997. However, thepetitioners were singled out for step-motherly treatment by directingtheir appointment on regular basis to be effective from the date of theproceedings, i.e., 05.02.2003.

No counter-affidavit has been filed by the APSRTC.

A reading of the orders passed by this Court in the two writpetitions – W.P.No.16862 of 1989 and 17865 of 1989 – reflects that theorders were identical in nature. The APSRTC, for reasons best known

to itself, implemented the order in W.P.No.17865 of 1989 immediatelyby issuing the proceedings dated 14.07.1997 giving effect to theregular appointment of the petitioners therein from 05.03.1997, thedate of the order in the writ petition. The same treatment was notextended to the petitioners herein, who had to approach this Courtagain for the said relief. The interim order dated 18.07.2002 passed bythis Court in W.P.No.14985 of 1999 demonstrates that it was the standof the APSRTC that the petitioners’ case could not be considered asthe competent authority had not accorded sanction. There is noexplanation as to why the competent authority, who thought it fit toaccord sanction in the case of the petitioners in W.P.No.17865 of1989, did not choose to do so in so far as the petitioners herein areconcerned. Thereafter, the petitioners’ services were regularized bytheir appointment on time scale under the proceedings dated05.02.2003.

There is no material placed on record to show that thepetitioners were engaged on casual basis in the year 1986 as assertedby them. In any event, similarly situated persons, being the petitionersin W.P.No.17865 of 1989, were given the benefit of regularappointment only from the date of the orders passed by this Court intheir writ petition.

In such circumstances, there shall be a direction to theAPSRTC to give effect to the appointment of the petitioners asShramiks on time scale from the date of disposal of W.P.No.16862 of1989, i.e., 29.09.1998. This retrospective regularization of theirservices will only be for notional and pensionary purposes and shallnot entail any monetary benefits to the petitioners.

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Nocosts.

31[st] DECEMBER, 2009PGS

--------------------------SANJAY KUMAR,J

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICESANJAY KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO.174 OF 2004

DECEMBER 31, 2009