IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24286 of 1999 Between: M.Ashok S/o Buchaiah, R/o 4-3-39, Indiranagar Colony, Sangareddy, Medak District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Medak Region, Sangareddy, Medak District. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus Depot, Sangareddy, Medak District. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus Depot, Zaheerabad, Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS 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 records from the Respondents in respect of P.No.P1/692(1)/99-RM-MR, dt 24--1999 and set aside the same in so far as treating the petitioner as junior most in the Conductor's category in the Medak Region by issuing a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ or direction as the Hon'ble Court deems ﬁt and grant the relief of restoration of the Petitioner's seniority alongwith all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24286 of 1999 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is working as a Conductor in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the APSRTC’), has questioned the oﬃce order dated 24th March 1999, passed by the respondents, to the extent of treating the petitioner as junior-most in the category of Conductors of Medak District. 2. Facts of the case are not in dispute. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Conductor in the APSRTC on 6th May 1981. While he was working in Sangareddy Depot of Medak District, he tendered resignation to his post on 6th January 1999, due to family disturbances. His resignation was accepted with eﬀect from 09.02.1999 vide Notiﬁcation No.P2/692(1)/99-DM-SRD, dated 06.02.1999. It is the case of the petitioner that this order dated 06.02.1999, accepting his resignation, was communicated to him only on 26.02.1999, and that, even before his resignation was accepted and communication was sent to him, he has ﬁled representations, dated 11th January 1999 and 26th February 1999, seeking for permission to withdraw the resignation tendered on 6th January 1999. While responding to the representation dated 26th February 1999, the oﬃce order dated 24th March 1999, has been passed to the following effect; “The Regional Manager, Medak Region has accorded permission to withdraw the resignation of Sri M.Ashok, E.96731, Conductor of Sangareddy Depot vide reference 1st cited, subject to the condition that he becomes junior-most in the category of Conductor in Medak Region. On withdrawal of resignation he is posted to Zaheerabad Depot. The Depot Manager, Zaheerabad Depot shall collect one month salary which is due from him before taking him on duty and report compliance.” 3. In this writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that asmuch as he was appointed on 06.05.1981, while accepting to withdraw the resignation, the respondents have imposed an erroneous condition to the eﬀect that he shall be treated as junior-most in the category of Conductors in Medak Region. It is his grievance that since the resignation tendered by him was allowed to be withdrawn, there is no reason in imposing the condition of treating him as junior-most, although he was appointed on 06.05.1981. 4. Counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled by the respondents, admitting that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in APSRTC, on 06.05.1981. It is stated that the resignation tendered by the petitioner was accepted vide proceedings dated 06.02.1999, issued in Notiﬁcation No.P2/692(1)/99-DM-SRC. It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner has submitted a representation on 22nd February 1999, seeking permission for withdrawal of his resignation, but however, by that time, the resignation of the petitioner was already accepted on 6th February 1999. 5. Further, it is stated in the counter aﬃdavit that the wife of the petitioner had also made a representation on 18th February 1999, which was received in the oﬃce of the Depot Manager, Sangareddy on 19th February 1999, seeking permission for withdrawal of the resignation tendered by the petitioner, and to permit him to join duty. Basing upon the said representation, the impugned proceedings are issued, permitting the petitioner for withdrawal of the resignation, subject to condition that he will be treated as junior-most in the category of Conductors in Medak Region. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri V.Narasimha Goud, and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 7. In this case, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that asmuch as the petitioner was appointed into service of the respondents as early as on 06.05.1981 as a Conductor, in that view of the matter, while permitting for withdrawal of resignation, there is no authority vested with the respondents to impose the condition, treating the petitioner as junior-most in the category of Conductors. It is submitted that once the withdrawal is permitted, the petitioner is entitled for reckoning of his service from the date of his initial appointment i.e. from 06.05.1981. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that asmuch as the petitioner has already resigned and re-appointed, he is not entitled for the beneﬁt of past service in view of the provision contained under Regulation 7(b) of the APSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Service Regulations). 8. The Service Regulations are framed in exercise of powers under Section 45(1) of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. Regulation No.7 of Service Regulations relates to resignation, re-employment and transfers. As per the provision contained under Clause 7(a) of the service regulations, a member of service shall, if he resigns his appointment, forfeit not only the service rendered by him in the particular post held by him at the time of resignation, but also all his previous service under the Corporation. Under Regulation 7(b) of these service regulations, the re-appointment of such person to any service shall be treated in the same way as a ﬁrst appointment to such service by direct recruitment and all rules governing such appointment shall apply; and on such re-appointment, he shall not be entitled to count any portion of his previous service for any beneﬁt or concession admissible under any rule or order. 9. Having regard to the above said provisions, the only question which is required to be considered is by virtue of the orders of the respondents permitting the petitioner for withdrawal of his resignation, can it be treated as a re-appointment within the meaning of regulation 7 (a) and (b). It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed at ﬁrst instance on 06.05.1981, and having served for about 17 years, indicating some domestic problems, he has tendered resignation on 06.01.1999. While it is open for the respondents to refuse for withdrawal of resignation on the ground that the resignation was already accepted prior to ﬁling of representations for its withdrawal, but once orders are passed permitting the petitioner to withdraw his resignation, it is not open for the respondents to impose any condition, depriving him of the past service of about 17 years. By virtue of withdrawal of resignation, he has to be put in the same position as if he has not resigned. Asmuch as the petitioner was restored into service by virtue of accepting his request for withdrawal of resignation, it cannot be treated as re-appointment within the meaning of Clause 7(b) of service regulations. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the permission accorded by respondents for withdrawal of resignation, the argument of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that the same has to be treated as re-appointment, cannot be accepted. In that view of the matter, I hold that there is no justiﬁable reason at all in depriving the petitioner of his past service of about 17 years, while permitting for withdrawal of his resignation, 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the oﬃce order under challenge, dated 24th March 1999, issued in proceedings No.P1/692(1)/99-RM:MR, to the extent of imposing the condition that the petitioner would become junior-most in the category of Conductors in Medak Region, is set aside, and it is declared that the petitioner is entitled to his past service from 06.05.1981. His pay has to be re-ﬁxed accordingly, and he is entitled for all consequential benefits. 12. Writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 26th August 2008 ajr To 1 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Medak Region, Sangareddy, Medak District. 2 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus Depot, Sangareddy, Medak District. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus Depot, Zaheerabad, Medak District.