Telangana High Court
WP/34142/2011 of P.V. Prasada Rao Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on 30 December 2011
SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 34142 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not granting seniority of service to the petitioners with effect from 18.02.1987 on par with similarly appointed
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Arguments
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
WRIT PETITION No. 34142 of 2011
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ ofmandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not grantingseniority of service to the petitioners with effect from 18.02.1987on par with similarly appointed persons as illegal, and arbitraryand violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India, andconsequently direct the respondents to grant seniority with effectfrom 18.02.1987.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learnedStanding Counsel for the respondent-Corporation.
The facts of the writ petition, in brief, are:
The petitioners are conductors in the respondent-Corporation. It is stated that they initially worked as conductorson stage carriage, and because of Nationalisation in the year 1986,they lost their jobs. The 1[st] respondent, as a matter of policy,absorbed the petitioners into service of the Corporation by issuingappointment orders in 1987 and they were regularized from 1989. It is further stated that the services of similarly situated personswho were inducted into service in 1989, consequent tonationalization, were regularized from 1987 itself, pursuant to theorder dated 04.12.1997 of this Court in WP No.16141 of 1994, andthat the petitioners should also be given the same benefit. Seeking direction to the respondents to regularize their servicesfrom 18.02.1987, on par with similarly situated persons, thepetitioners filed this writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that,similarly situated persons were granted the benefit of regularization from 18.02.1987 and the same may be granted inthe case of the petitioners herein.
Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporationcontended that the petitioners have not made any representationwith regard to their grievance and instead, filed this writ petitionstraightaway, and hence, the petitioners may be directed to filetheir representation for consideration by the respondentCorporation.
Admittedly, the petitioners are absorbed in the respondentCorporation as conductors in 1987, but later regularized from theyear 1989. However, similarly situated conductors who wereappointed in 1989 were regularized from 18.02.1987 itself. Seeking a similar relief this writ petition is filed by the petitioners.
In view of the submissions made by the counsel and, onperusal of material on record, this writ petition is disposed of, witha liberty to the petitioners to make a representation, with allrelevant particulars, to the respondents Corporation within two (02)from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and on filing suchrepresentation, the respondents are directed to consider the same,within four (04) weeks, in accordance with law. There shall be noorder as to costs.
30[th] December, 2011
__________________________
JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
KSM