WP/27703/2005 of Ch.Prakash Reddy Vs The Commissioner of Endowments, Andhra pradesh on 28 December 2005

ORDER:

The petitioner states that he has been working as driver on NMR basis in Sri VeeraVenkata Satyanarayana Swamy, the second respondent herein, since 1994. Hecontends that some of the drivers, who were engaged along with him, wereappointed on regular basis way back in the year 2000 and that he was not extendedsuch benefit. He claims to have made several representations, the latest be the onedated 07-05-2005, in this regard and complaints that no action has been takenthereon.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader forEndowments and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3.

The petitioner has placed before this court, two orders dated 31-03-2003, throughwhich, the second respondent has regularized the services of two NMR drivers byname M.Prasad and J.Kasiviswanath. The question as to whether the petitioner hasthe same length of service as NMR and whether he deserves to be extended the same benefit, needs to be considered by the respondents. If the petitioner stands onthe same footing as that of two employees referred to above, there is no reason whyhe should be discriminated in the matter of extending the benefit underG.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1994, if there exists any vacancy. The representationof the petitioner cannot be kept pending indefinitely.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondentsto consider the case of the petitioner for regular appointment as driver againstexisting vacancy, as was done, in the case of other NMR drivers, who are said to beengaged along with the petitioner. This exercise shall be completed within a periodof two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

28-12-2005

______________