IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17628 of 2008 Between: Smt.B.Dhanalakshmi D/o.Veerraju R/o.Janikipeta, Near Red Bridge, Amalapuram, E.G. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its VC & MD, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. E.G. Region, E.G. District. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Tuni Depot, E.G. District. .....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 a writ order or directions more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to regularize the service of the petitioner in the post of Conductor on par with the petitioners juniors after completion of 240 days and punishment period as per the circulars cited in the oﬃce order dated 31.8.2001 with all consequential beneﬁts including re ﬁxation of pay and protection of continuity of service from the date of initial appointment and pay arrears and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.GOVINDA RAJULU Counsel for the Respondent No.: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17628 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Conductor on causal basis on 17.03.1998. She was issued a charge sheet on 05.12.1998, alleging that she remained absent unauthorisedly. Through an order, dated 10.02.1999, she was removed from service. Challenging the same, the petitioner ﬁled W.P.No.20779 of 2000. This Court allowed the writ petition on 24.08.2004, on the ground that no enquiry was conducted into the charge framed against the petitioner. It was left open to the respondents to conduct enquiry. The respondents reinstated the petitioner on 14.10.2004. Thereafter, an enquiry oﬃcer was appointed, who, in turn, submitted a report, dated 06.08.2005, holding that the charge framed against the petitioner is proved. Taking the report into account, the 3rd respondent issued oﬃce order, dated 16.08.2005, imposing the punishment of deferment of decasualisation of the services of the petitioner for a period of three months. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The order, dated 10.02.1999 passed by the 3rd respondent against the petitioner, removing her from service, was set aside by this Court in W.P.No.20770 of 2000. It was left open to the 3rd respondent to take necessary action against the petitioner, after following the procedure prescribed by law. It was in this context that an enquiry oﬃcer was appointed and domestic enquiry was conducted. The charge framed against the petitioner was held proved. The punishment imposed against the petitioner is somewhat typical in nature. It has the eﬀect of postponing the date of regularization of the services of the petitioner. It is a matter of record that the employees, who were appointed along with the petitioner, were decasualised, vide proceedings, dated 31.08.2001, with eﬀect from 01.08.1999 and thereby, their services were regularized. The eﬀect of the impugned order is that the services of the petitioner will be delayed by about 6 years. Though it may appear to be almost innocuous, the eﬀect thereof would be felt in terms of seniority, ﬁxation of emoluments and determination of terminal beneﬁts. The impugned order does not contain any discussion, as to the alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner. This Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the decasualisation of the petitioner is deferred by one year, compared to the decasualisation of the employees appointed along with her. To be precise, the petitioner would stand decasualised with effect from 01.08.2000. Hence, the writ petition is partly allowed, modifying the impugned order to the eﬀect that the decasualisation of the petitioner shall take place with effect from 01.08.2000, only for the purpose of seniority, ﬁxation of pay scale and calculation of terminal benefits. She shall not be entitled to be paid any back wages or arrears of salary, on account of this relief. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 01.09.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17628 of 2008 Date: 01.09.2008 JSU