IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No : 11145 of 2004 Between: P.Saroja W/o.Satyanarayana, R/o.1-34, Nagulapally, Post:Pothula Boguda, Via Alladurg, Medak Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager,APSRTC, Medak Region, Sangareddy, Medak Dist. 2 The Depot Manager,APSRTC, Bus Depot, Narayankhed, Medak Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the in action of the respondents in not regularizing the petitioners service from the date of completion of (240) days of service from the initial date of joining the service as illegal, unjust and in violation of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to regularize her service from date on which I completed (240) days of service from the initial date of joining the service i.e., 01-07-2000 along with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No : 11145 of 2004 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The writ petition is filed praying for issue of a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the in action of the respondents in not regularizing the petitioners service, from the date of completion of (240) days of service from the initial date of joining the service as illegal, unjust and in violation of the Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents to regularize her service from the date on which, she completed (240) days of service from the initial date of joining the service i.e., 01-07-2000 along with all consequential benefits. The case of the petitioner is that while she was working under the control of D.M., Zaheerabad, she was removed from service illegally vide order dated 16.7.1999. Being aggrieved by the same, she raised an Industrial Dispute No.153 of 2000 on the ﬁle of the Labour Court, Hyderabad by award dated 6.5.2003, the learned Labour Court partly allowed the I.D and set aside the order of termination dated 24.8.1999, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as daily waged conductor at the present rate of daily wages and also held that the petitioner is not entitled to back wages nor she is entitled to continuity of service and attendant beneﬁts. Subsequently, the said award was notiﬁed vide G.O.Rt.No.1056/Labour Employment Training & Factories (Lab.1) Department, dated 10.6.2003. Pursuant to the same, she reported for duty and she was reinstated into service on 3.9.2003 at the Narayankhed Depot i.e., in the 2nd respondent- Corporation. Accordingly, she was working as on that date without any interruption and thereafter, she started requesting the respondents to regularize her services as she had put in 4½ years along with all attendant beneﬁts, and also as she had completed 240 days from the date of initial appointment. On behalf of the respondents, a counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled and it is stated that the petitioner was engaged as casual conductor on daily wage basis at Zaheerabad depot on 23.6.1999. As she involved in cash and ticket irregularities, her name was deleted from the Selection list of the conductor w.e.f 24.8.1999. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised a dispute in I.D.No.153 of 2000. Therefore, the learned Labour Court by its Award dated 16.5.2003, directed the Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service as daily wage conductor and made it clear that the petitioner is neither entitled to back wages nor continuity of service and attendant benefits. In compliance with the award of the Labour Court, the petitioner was reinstated as casual conductor at Narayanakhed depot on 3.9.2003. It is also stated that in the engagement on casual basis, it was clearly mentioned that her engagement on casual basis will not conﬁrm any right for regularization at a later date. Agreeing for the condition, the petitioner came forward, for engagement on casual basis. It is also stated that her services will be regularized as and when vacancies arise. As the vacancies have not arisen in Medak Region, she could not be absorbed as regular conductor. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has completed 240 days and above all she has been working continuously from the date of initial appointment and with a gap of the termination and subsequent to the reinstatement by virtue of the order passed by the Labour Court, she fulﬁlled all the conditions for regularization of the services. Therefore, she is entitled to the regularization of the services. On the other hand, the respondent ﬁled a counter, which reveals that the petitioner could not be regularized, for want of vacancies and her case will be considered as and when vacancies arises. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, the Writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of her services as and when regular vacancies arise as per law and also as per the scheme i.e available in the respondent Corporation. No costs. _____________________ Justice G. Chandraiah Date:13.06.2008 mrb