IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18478 of 2000 Between: R.Adinarayana Reddy, S/o.Rangareddy, A.P.S.R.T.C., Ibrahimpatnam, Ibrahimpatnam Depot, Hyderabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad City Region, J.B.S., Picket, Hyderabad. .....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 issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings dt:17.10.98 in No.L4/785(52)/98-HCR issued by the respondent herein in so far as denying retrospective regularisation with eﬀect from 1.10.1987 is concerned as illegal and arbitrary and consequently declare that the writ petitioner is entitled to be regularised with eﬀect from 1.10.1987 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.V.MALLIK Counsel for the Respondent : K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 18478 of 2000 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is working as a Cleaner in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), has questioned the proceedings dated 17th October 1998, passed in proceedings No.L4/785(52)/98-HCR, by the respondent herein, to the extent of denying regularization of his service with effect from 01.10.1987. 2. From the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, it is clear that the only ground taken by the petitioner for claiming regularization with eﬀect from 01.10.1987 appears to be based on an oﬃce order passed by the respondent on 30th of September 1987. The petitioner was initially engaged as a contract Cleaner in Musheerabad Depot from 09.07.1986 to 12.12.1986, and subsequently, he was engaged as a casual Cleaner on daily wage basis with eﬀect from 14.01.1987. On the ground that in the regularization orders dated 30.09.1987, his name was also included and the date of regularization was shown as 01.10.1987, petitioner claims seniority and regularization retrospectively with eﬀect from 01.10.1987. 3. But however, in the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by the respondent, it is stated that after the appointment of petitioner as a Cleaner on daily wage basis on 14th of January 1987 in Kushaiguda Depot, the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent from duty with eﬀect from 16.09.1987. With regard to the order, dated 30th September 1987, regularizing the services of 42 casual employees, in which the name of the petitioner was also included, it is explained in the counter that the same was issued by mistakenly showing the name of the petitioner though he was unauthorisedly absent from 16.09.1987. It is stated that on realizing the same, a corrigendum, dated 03.10.1987, was issued, whereby the name of the petitioner was deleted. It is also stated in the counter that the corrigendum dated 03.10.1987 was also questioned by the petitioner earlier, by ﬁling a writ petition in W.P.No.14153 of 1994, seeking for a further relief to give eﬀect to the order dated 30th September 1987. Though such a relief was sought for in the said writ petition, no relief was granted by this Court, and this Court has merely directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization by giving suﬃcient opportunity of hearing before passing an order. It is stated that subsequent to the orders of this Court, a notice was issued to the petitioner, but inspite of issuance of such notice, the petitioner did not appear before the authorities, but however, by taking a sympathetic view, the claim of the petitioner was considered and through the impugned orders, his services were regularized under Regulation 17 of the APSRTC Employees (Recruitment) Regulations in the scale of Rs.1980-56- 2764-77-3919-82-4165. 4. Even in the present writ petition, except referring to the order dated 30th September 1987, claiming regularization with retrospective eﬀect from 01.10.1987, there is no other reason indicated by the petitioner for such claim. Asmuch as the very such relief is rejected earlier by this Court in writ petition No.14153 of 1994, and as it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as a casual Cleaner on daily wage basis in Kushaiguda Depot from 14th January 1987, but he was unauthorisedly absconding from duty with eﬀect from 16.09.1987, there is no basis for the claim of the petitioner for regularization with eﬀect from 01.10.1987. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 30th October 2008 ajr