IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5555 of 2008 Between: G. Saidamma E.No. 175646 D/o. Sattaiah at Devarakonda Depot, APSRTC, Devarakonda Mandal, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Vice Chairman & Managing Director APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Devarakonda, Nalgonda Region, Nalgonda District. 3 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Devarakonda, Nalgonda Region, Nalgonda District. 4 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Devarakonda Depot, Nalgonda 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 issue an appropriate writ order or direction preferably one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declre the action of the 2nd respondent in imposing the punishment of not granting continuity of service from 18-4- 2004 to 13-2-2006 to the extent of Impugned proceedings No.PA/20(104)/2005-HCR dt.13-2-2006 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and set aside the same and also not regularising the services of the petitioner from date of her juniors were regularised i.e, from 17-10-2007 is as illegal, arbitrary unreasonable and also inviolation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to grant continuity of service from the period i.e, from 18-4-2004 to 13-2-2006 and also regularise the services of the petitioner along with her juniors and also with all consequential and attended benefits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MRC.RAJA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5555 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a casual Conductor in A.P.S.R.T.C. in the year 1999. A charge sheet dated 06.09.2003 was issued to her alleging that she remained absent between 07.08.2003 and 06.09.2003 and for one day, on another occasion. The petitioner submitted her explanation stating that she suffered from serious ill-health and was denied treatment by A.P.S.R.T.C. Hospital at Taranaka on the ground that she is only a casual employee. Not being satisfied with her explanation, departmental enquiry was conducted and through the order dated 18.04.2004, fourth respondent removed the petitioner from service. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before third respondent was rejected. Thereupon, she filed a review before the Regional Manager – second respondent. Though an order dated 13.02.2006, the second respondent had set aside the order of removal passed against the petitioner and directed that the petitioner be reengaged as casual Conductor Grade II on daily wage basis, afresh. He further directed that the seniority of the petitioner shall be reckoned from the date of her reporting for duty for all purposes. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the denial of continuity of service and back wages. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. Basically the petitioner had to avail the remedy of reference of industrial dispute to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. However, being a woman casual employee, the petitioner had her own difficulty in approaching the employees’ union, to get her cause espoused. The limited context in which the petitioner had approached this Court is that if she is extended the benefit of continuity of service, she would be absorbed as a regular Conductor, on par with the other employees. It is no doubt true that the petitioner remained absent for about one month. The explanation offered by her was that she was denied treatment by A.P.S.R.T.C. Hospital and she had to go to different places for treatment. Though this explanation did not appeal to the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, the second respondent i.e., the reviewing authority had taken note of the same, apart from the past conduct of the petitioner. It emerged that except that the petitioner was disengaged on the ground of lack of vacancies, there did not exist any complaints against her. He directed reengagement of the petitioner, but denied the benefit of past service. This Court is of the view that though the petitioner cannot be extended the monetary benefits for the period during which she was out of service, the benefit of continuity of service cannot be denied to her. Mere engagement afresh, would cause the petitioner too heavy, in terms of regularization. The difficulties to be faced by women in discharging the duties of a Conductor do not need any emphasis. It is with the fond hope that the services would be regularized at a later point of time, that the petitioner is working as a casual employee for the past one decade. The small lapse on her part should not lead to denial of the benefit of regularization. Hence, the writ petition is allowed in part, directing that the petitioner shall be entitled to the continuity of service for the period between the date of removal from service and date of reinstatement, but without any financial benefits. The said period shall be for the purpose of reckoning the seniority in the matter of regularization/absorption as well as pension and other benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 14th March, 2008 GHN