IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 27359 of 1998 Between: N.Venkateshwar Rao, S/o. Venkata Raju, R/o. Maddilapalem, District; Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Visakapatnam. 3 The Depot Manage, A.P.S.R.T.C., Maddilapalem Bus Depot, District; Visakhapatnam. .....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 to issue appropriate Writ or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents in not promoting the petitioner to the post of ADC/Controller on par with his Juniors Viz; TSN Murthy, E.No. 86063 and P.S. Murthy, E.No. 86082 Who were Promoted w.e.f 12-11-87 and 13-11-1987 as arbitrary, unjust and in Violation of Articles -14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and also Contrary to the Spirit of the order made by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 20944 of 95 and contrary to the service regulations of the Respondent's Corporation and consequently, direct the 2nd Respondent to promote the petitioner to the post of ADC/Controller on par With his juniors along with all consequential benefits in the interest of Justice and fair play and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER : The writ petitioner is presently working as Assistant Depot Clerk with APSRTC. He was absorbed in the service of the APSRTC as a conductor as the private service in which he was engaged was nationalized and the service was taken over by the APSRTC. Thus he came into the service of the APSRTC for the first time on 30.11.1978. But, however, upon noticing that the writ petitioner was less than 21 years of age, the Corporation regularized his services with effect from 3.10.1979, the date on which he has completed 21 years of age. That action of the APSRTC gave rise to Industrial Dispute No. 16/1990. Since the Labour Court has rejected the claim, WP No. 20944 of 1995 came to be instituted before this Court. A Division Bench by its judgment dated 15.10.1997 considered this matter and held that since the writ petitioner was above the 18 years of age as on 30.11.1978, as such he is entitled to claim regularization from the said date. This judgment has become final. Pursuant thereto, the Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam, passed orders in his office orders dated 21.1.1998 regularising the service of the petitioner as conductor with effect from 30.11.1978 and on 21.4.1998, necessary notification has been issued incorporating his name in the seniority list at Sl. No.157-A based upon the date of regularization of the services as 30.11.1978. The claim of the petitioner now is that, two other individuals viz., Sri PSN Murthy and Sri T.S.Murthy who were appointed as conductors on 1.12.1978 were promoted as Assistant Depot Clerks on 12.11.1987 and 13.11.1987 respectively and since the above said two individuals have been recruited as conductors a day later to his date of regular appointment as conductor being 30.11.1978, they are liable to be treated as his juniors and when they were so promoted he was illegally denied such a promotion with effect from those dates. The learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC has produced the file wherein by an office order passed by the Divisional Manager, Visakhapatnam (an order dated 7.5.1988) the services of said Assistant Depot Clerks have been regularized with effect from the date of their reporting at the respective depots. Thus on and from 7.5.1988, the aforementioned two individuals have been treated as regular Assistant Depot Clerks. But, however, by the time this order came to be passed by the Divisional Manager, the issue relating to the regularization of the service of the writ petitioner was still not crystallized and consequently he could not be so promoted. The fact remains that the petitioner has since been promoted as the Assistant Depot Clerk and is currently holding this post. If only the corporation has restored his seniority as a conductor with effect from 30.11.1978 the petitioner also would have been promoted on regular basis as Assistant Depot Clerk on and from 7.5.1988. It is not his fault not to have been considered for such a promotion when the above mentioned two individuals were so promoted on 7.5.1988. If only the orders fixing his seniority of the writ petitioner at Sl. No. 157-A were available as of 7.5.1988 the petitioner also would have been accorded such a promotion. For no fault of his, he was denied the benefit of consideration for promotion on par with his juniors. Now that the writ petitioner has already been promoted as Assistant Depot Clerks it is only appropriate that the respondents consider regularizing his services as Assistant Depot Clerk with effect from 7.5.1988 the date on which his juniors were so promoted. The orders in this regard are liable to be passed within the next three months. It is needless to observe that the writ petitioner is entitled for all consequential benefits from 13.11.1988 the date on which he was actually promoted, on a notional basis, as he has not discharged functions of Assistant Depot Clerk upto that period. He would not be entitled to be paid the actual monetary benefits, but by way of fixation of his seniority etc., he will be deemed to have been promoted as Assistant Depot Clerk on and from 7.5.1988 and those benefits will accrue to him from the month of February, 2008 onwards. With this the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. -------------------------------------- N.RAMAMOHANA RAO,J Dt : 29.2.2008 knk .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TML}