IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9596 of 2008 Between: K. Rajeshwam, S/o. Laxmi Rajam, APSRTC, Depot Siricilla, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC, Rep by its Regioal Manager, Karimnagar. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC Depot, Siricilla, Karimnagar 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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider the Representation dated 28-1-2008 of the petitioner for grant of "Stagnation Increment" from August, 1997 instead of August, 2003 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.M.REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9596 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Conductor on 28.08.1985. But his services were regularized on 23.10.1991 with prospective effect. Complaining that he was not regularized with effect from the date of initial appointment, and discriminatory treatment was accorded, when compared to the other conductors appointed on the same day, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.12925 of 2005. The same was disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents. On a consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner, the 1st respondent issued proceedings, dated 06.01.2006, directing that the services of the petitioner shall stand regularized with effect from the date of his initial appointment. The Corporation has provided for sanction of stagnation increment for the employees, who have put in 12 years of service, but did not earn any promotion. The date of regularization became relevant, in the context of extension of stagnation increment. The petitioner states that the respondents have calculated his services from 23.10.1991 instead of 28.08.1985 and accordingly, made a representation, dated 28.01.2008. He complains that no action has been taken thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. For one reason or the other, the respondents have not regularized the services of the petitioner with effect from the date of his initial appointment. The anomaly was corrected, on a representation made by the petitioner in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court. Once the services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from 1985, he is entitled to be extended the benefit of stagnation increment etc. If there are any other factors, that disentitle the petitioner to get the benefit, the same need to be informed. The representation made by the petitioner cannot be kept pending indefinitely. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the representation, dated 28.01.2008, made by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 29.04.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9596 of 2008 Date: 29.04.2008 JSU