IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2874 of 2006 Between: T.V. Prasad, S/o. Chennaiah HCU (Gachibowli) Bus Depot, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Nalgonda Region, Nalgonda District, Andhra Pradesh. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kodad Bus Depot, Kodad, Nalgonda District, A.P. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, HCU (Gachibowli) Bus Depot, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. .....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 issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Manadamus declaring that the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner is bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unreasonable by setting aside the office Order No. 02/95/DS(81)/99-KDD, dt. 20-6-2000 of the R2 herein consequently direct the Respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner immediately and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was initially appointed as a Conductor on casual basis in 1998 by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. The Corporation regularized the services of the casual employees and by Office Order, dated 20.06.2000, several persons, who were engaged along with the petitioner, were regularized. However, on the same day, the Depot Manager, Kodad, the second respondent herein, passed an order imposing the punishment of postponement of the regularization of services of the petitioner by one year. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after expiry of one year, his services were not regularized and that it was only in the year 2007 that he was regularized by assigning the place below several juniors. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit narrating the circumstances under which the punishment of deferment of regularisation by one year was imposed. However, the counter-affidavit is silent as to why the services of the petitioner were not regularized after expiry of one year. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Strictly speaking what is imposed vide Office Order, dated 20.06.2000, cannot be treated as a punishment. At the most, it is comparable to the extension of period of probation. It is a matter of record that the respondents regularized the services of other casual employees vide orders, dated 20.06.2000. The Office Order passed against the petitioner has become final. At the most, it can entail in postponement of regularization of services of the petitioner by one year. It was only in the year 2007 that he was extended such a benefit. Such an action of the respondents cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the respondents shall regularise the services of the petitioner with effect from 20.06.2001 and put him in the proper place in the seniority list. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 04.07.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}