Telangana High Court
WP/2670/2005 of G. Md. ghouse, Vs The APSRTC, on 31 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.2670 of 2005 Dated:31.12.2007 Between G.Md.Ghouse ..Petitioner and 1. The APSRTC rep., by its Managing Director, Kurnool and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.2670 of 2005 ORDER: Learned counsel on either side
Ratio decidendi
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
W.P.No.2670 of 2005
Dated:31.12.2007
Between
G.Md.Ghouse
and
..Petitioner
1.The APSRTC rep., by itsManaging Director, Kurnooland others.
…Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.2670 of 2005
ORDER:
Learned counsel on either side fairlyconceded that the issue involved in this writ petitionis squarely covered by a Judgment of Apex Courtin Divisional Manager, APSRTC and others v.P.Lakshmoji Rao[[1]] wherein it was observed asunder:
“In view of this peculiar situation and inorder to avoid the anomalies that mightotherwise ensue, while we hold that therespondent-employees have failed toestablish their legal right to get the status ofregular employees right from the date of theirinitial appointment on daily wage basis andthe respective dates of regularizationassigned to the respondents cannot belegally faulted, we are inclined to mould therelief in modification of the directions given inthe judgments under appeal and direct asfollows.
If any of the Conductors, junior to therespondents in the relevant seniority list ofthe concerned Division/Region, have got thebenefit of seniority and regularization OR areentitled to get the same by virtue of thejudgments that have become final, then therespondents who are seniors to them, shall be given the same benefit on the sameprinciple.”
Following the same, this writ petition is alsodisposed of. No costs.
__________
31-12-2007
rkk
[1]2004(3) ALD 1 (SC)
Page 1 of 1
Loading citations and judicial treatment…