WRIT PETITION 35291 of 2014 on 24 June 2002

1. A. Rizwan, S/o. A.K. Basha, Aged about 32 years, Mecbanic (E-552709),APSRTC, Putturu Bus Depot, Chittoor District, A.P.APSRTC, Putturu Bus Depot, Chittoor District, A.P.

2. M. Ramu, S/o. M. Krishnaiah, Aged about 35 years. Mechanic (E-552710),APSRTC, Tirupati Bus Depot, Chittoor District, A.P.APSRTC, Tirupati Bus Depot, Chittoor District, A.P.

3. M.S. Ganesh Babu, S/o. M.S. Vasulu, Aged about 36 years. Mechanic (E-552711), APSRTC, Palamaneru Bus Depot, Chittoor District,[A.P.]552711), APSRTC, Palamaneru Bus Depot, Chittoor District,[A.P.]

4. V. Srinivasulu, S/o. V. Sukumar, Aged about 32 years. Mechanic (E-552705),APSRTC, Tirumala Bus Depot, Chittoor District, A.P.APSRTC, Tirumala Bus Depot, Chittoor District, A.P.

AND

...Petitioners

1. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by itsThe Chairman & Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.The Chairman & Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

2. The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport CorporationChittoor Region, at Chittoor, A.P.Chittoor Region, at Chittoor, A.P.

...Respondents

Petition under Section 114 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filedin support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased toreview the order passed in WP.No. 35291 of 2014 dated 26-12-2023.

WRIT PETITION NO: 35291 OF 2014

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayingthatinthecircumstances statedintheaffidavit filedtherewith,theHighCourt may bepleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature ofwrit of mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in not regularizing the petitioner service w.e.f. completion of 240 days from the date of petitioner'sinitial appointments and regularizing the petitioners services w.e.f. 01-07-2009 isbad arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondents to regularize thepetitioners services w.e.f. completion of 240 days from the date of theirinitialappointments.

i.A. NO: 1 OF 2014fWPMP. NO: 44144 OF 2014)

tKSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances[stated]inhe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased directtherespondentsto considerthecaseof thepetitionersforeffectingtheregularisation of their services w.e.f. completion of 240 days from the their initialappointments instead of 01-07-2009 and Judgments.

lA NO: 3 OF 2024

tho■'51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated[in]i'I'S'’ Court may be pleased to setaside the order passed in WP No. 35291 of 2014 dated 26-12-2023.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SRINIVASA RAO NARRA

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K VISWANATHAM (SC FOR APSRTC)

The Court made the following order:

APHCO10623782014IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRAPRADESHAT AMARAVATI1^.(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3457]

TUESDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.NlA 1 OF 2024

IN

WRIT PETITION NO: 35291/2014

Between:A. Rizwan, and Others...PETITIONER(S)

AND

The Andhra Pradesh State Road...RESPONDENT(S)Transport Corporation and OthersCounsel for the Petitioner(S):Transport Corporation and OthersCounsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SRINIVASA RAO NARRA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):l.K VISWANATHAM (SC FOR APSRTC)

2. K VISWANATHAM (SC FOR APSRTC)

The Court made the following:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Thepetitionershavefiledthisapplicationseekingreview of the order dated 26.12.2023.review of the order dated 26.12.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing virtually

online submits that the case of the petitioners stand on parwith the other petitioners whose case was considered by thisCourt for the purpose of granting notionalseniority.The

I.A.No.l of 2024

petitionerswerealsoengagedoncasualbasisvideproceedings dated 24.06.2002 and that the petitioner[Nos.l]to 3 were appointed on casual basis as Mechanic Grade-11[on]30.01.2004andthepetitionerNo.4 wasappointedasaMechanic Grade-II on 24.06.2002 they also completed[their]basic training.The petitioner services were regularizedon23.07.2009 with effect from 01.07.2011.Learned counsel forthe petitioner submits that all the petitioners are[in][ service]and petitioner Nos.1 to 3 belongs to 10^^ batch of[BTC][ and]petitioner No.4 belongs to 9^ batch of BTC.Learned[counsel]for the petitioner submits that the 8^^ batch BTC successfullycompleted their training and appointed as Mechanic[Grade-Il]onregularbasissoalso,theIBhbatchof BTCwhocompleted their training were appointed as Mechanic[Grade-]IIonregularbasis.Learnedcounselfor thepetitionerssubmits that the petitioners would be entitled for grant ofseniority. The petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 will be entitle for grant ofseniority from 30.01.2004 as the petitioner No.4 would[be]entitle for the seniority from 24.06.2002.

3. LearnedStandingcounselfortherespondent-corporation submits that the cadre of each District[and]Depotis different and vacancies in the respectivedistrictsand the posts would also be distinct.The petitioners[were]engaged on casual basis in the year, 2002, as there[were no]vacanciesat that pointof time andthatthepetitionerscannot claim parity with the mechanics who are employed[on]regularbasis,asforthosebatchesthevacancieswereavailable at that Depot or District.corporation submits that the cadre of each District[and]Depotis different and vacancies in the respectivedistrictsand the posts would also be distinct.The petitioners[were]engaged on casual basis in the year, 2002, as there[were no]vacanciesat that pointof time andthatthepetitionerscannot claim parity with the mechanics who are employed[on]regularbasis,asforthosebatchesthevacancieswereavailable at that Depot or District.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that thecase of the petitioners has to be considered empatheticallyand requests the Court to direct the respondents to[consider]the case of the petitioners for notional seniority only.case of the petitioners has to be considered empatheticallyand requests the Court to direct the respondents to[consider]the case of the petitioners for notional seniority only.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on[the]last occasion when the matter was taken up,the learnedcounsel for the petitioner did not bring to the courts[notice]the order passed by this Court in similar matters.last occasion when the matter was taken up,the learnedcounsel for the petitioner did not bring to the courts[notice]the order passed by this Court in similar matters.

6. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for[the]petitioners,thepetitionerswill beconsideredfornotionalpetitioners,thepetitionerswill beconsideredfornotional T

I.A.No.1 of 2024In4W.P.No.35291 of2014

seniority purposes, the service of the Petitioner Nos.lto 3shallbeconsideredfrom30.01.2002andserviceofthepetitionerNo.4from24.06.2002shallbeconsideredfornotional seniority purpose only and it is made clear[that][ the]petitionersshallnotbeentitledforback wagesoranymonetary benefits owing on account of getting seniority[from]the dates mentioned above.

7. Accordingly,theorderdated26.12.2023standsmodified gmd review petition is allowed.modified gmd review petition is allowed.

Sd/- K.TATA RAODEPUTY! REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//SECOFFICER

To,

1. The Vice-Chairman & Managing Director, The Andhra[Pradesh][ State][ Road]Transport Corporation, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.2. The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport CorporationChittoor Region, at Chittoor, A.P.

3. One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Narra, Advocate [OPUC]

4. One CC to Sri K.Viswanatham, (SC for APSRTC) [OPUC]

5. Two CD Copies

RAM

HIGH COURT

DATED:20/02/2024

ORDERIA.No.1 of 2024INWP.No.35291 of 2014

m. „01 APR 202*1Co^Current Section

REVIEW IA.No.1 of 2024 IS ORDERED&ALLOWING THE REVIEW PETITION

,U