IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 7354 of 2008 Between: V.Harihara Prasad S/o.Kondala Rayudu R/o.252/2RT Saidabad colony Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND The Regional manager (HCR), APSRTC JBS Picket Secunderabad .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the records from the Respondent herein by issuing a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the respondent herein in rejecting the request of the petitioner for posting orders vide proceedings No.D2/430(1)/05-HCR/GHZ dated 25.2.2008 in pursuance of the Proceedings No.P1/813(2)/97-DVM(H) dated 15.2.1997 of Divisional Manager, Hyderabad Divison, as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law and also in violation of Articles 14, and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent herein to issue posting orders to the petitioner as Conductor. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.SRIDHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Conductor in 1993. He fell sick in 1997 and reported to duty on 04.02.1997 to the Divisional Manager, Hyderabad. Thereupon, he was referred to the Regional Manager, the respondent, vide letter, dated 15.02.1997. The petitioner submitted a representation, dated 12.07.2004, to the respondent stating that while on the way to report to duty before him, as directed by the Divisional Manager, he had fallen ill and could recover from mental agony, jaundice, etcetera only in 2004. He narrated the developments, which have taken place from 1997. Complaining that no action has been taken on his representation, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.14131 of 2005. The writ petition was disposed of, directing the respondent to pass orders on the representation, dated 12.07.2004, submitted by the petitioner. In compliance with the said direction, the respondent passed an order, dated 25.02.2008, stating that the petitioner cannot be taken into service, since he remained absent for a period of exceeding five years. Regulation 30 of A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees (Leave) Regulations, 1963 (for short ‘the Regulations’) is invokable. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. This is a pathetic case where the petitioner suffered from ailment of one kind or the other for a prolonged period. His attempt to resume duty did not fructify on account of recurrence of the same. The initial spell of absence was for about 163 days. When he reported to duty, the Divisional Manager referred him to the respondent. Before he could report to duty, the petitioner became ill and un-well. The respondent refused to take the petitioner into service only on the ground that he remained absent for a period of seven years. Regulation 30 of the Regulations was invoked. A perusal of Regulation 30 discloses that except stipulating the maximum period of leave, that may be granted to an employee, it does not provide for consequences of unauthorised absence. Admittedly, no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for unauthorized absence. Therefore, the view taken by the respondent cannot be sustained in law. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he too did not pursue the remedies properly nor did he make any effort to resume duties without delay. He has not even availed the medical facilities provided by the Corporation. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the petitioner is directed to be taken as a fresh candidate into service by denying him all the past benefits. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, directing that the respondent shall take the petitioner into service as a fresh candidate as Conductor, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the petitioner shall not be entitled to any benefit whatever for any period anterior to the date of fresh appointment. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ 04.04.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}