THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 1692 OF 1999 Date: 23.01.2008 Between: M. Yadagiri. … Petitioner. And The A.P. State Road Transport Corpn, Musheerabad, Hyderabad rep., by its Managing Director and five others. … Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 1692 OF 1999 ORDER: The action of the respondents in regularizing the services of the petitioner only from 01.11.1994 instead of 01.06.1992 is questioned in this writ petition as being arbitrary and illegal and a consequential direction is sought for regularization of his services with effect from 01.06.1992. The petitioner joined at Zaheerabad Depot in Medak District on 08.08.1991. He worked till July 1992, by which date he claims to have completed 240 days of service. According to the petitioner, since he completed 240 days of service by 31.05.1992, he was entitled for regularization from 01.06.1992. It is his case that two other drivers Sri T. Ramulu, E.290709 and Y. Raghu, E.290710, who were appointed along with him, had been regularized on completion of 240 days of service and that he was similarly entitled to be regularized. In the Counter-affidavit, the respondent would state the petitioner was engaged as a driver on daily wages at Zaheerabad depot on 08.06.1991, that he was disengaged on 16.01.1992 for want of vacancy along with others, that he was re-engaged at Zaheerabad depot on 21.01.1992 and disengaged on 28.06.1992 during slack season for want of vacancy, that he was re-engaged at Siddipet depot on 23.01.1993 and disengaged on 24.04.1993 and that he was subsequently directed to Hyderabad City Region for engagement as there were no vacancies in Medak Region. It is stated that the petitioner was engaged on 22.08.1993 at BHEL depot in Hyderabad City Region as driver on daily wage basis and that later he was repatriated to his parent Medak Division on 03.02.1994 and he was engaged at Zaheerabad depot on 14.02.1994. It is also stated that the petitioner was disengaged at Zaheerabad Depot on 01.10.1994 for want of vacancy. According to the respondents, since the petitioner was disengaged and found surplus at Medak Division, he was directed to Hyderabad City Region for engagement on daily wage basis. Respondent would state that the petitioner was taken on duty as driver on daily wage basis at BHEL depot in October, 1994 and pursuant to an undertaking given by him on 11.10.1994 expressing his willingness to be posted in Hyderabad City Region for providing employment on daily wage basis, on his expressing his willingness to be regularized in Hyderabad Region and since he had stated that he was aware that he would not be allowed to seek transfer out of Hyderabad City Region to any other Division until he completed three years of service after regularization, were his services regularized in the region with effect from 01.11.1994 taking into consideration the requirement of drivers as per the norms. With regards Sri T. Ramulu and Sri Y. Raghu, respondents would contend that neither of them were regularized nor posted in Hyderabad region, that regularisation of casual crew is based on the guidelines issued by the Corporate Office and the petitioner, after expressing his willingness for regularization in the Hyderabad Region through the undertaking executed by him, was regularized with effect from 01.11.1994. His services were regularised in Hyderabad Region with effect from 01.11.1994 and he was given the pay scales of driver Grade-II from that date. The respondents do not dispute that Sri T. Ramulu and Sri Y. Raghu, were appointed along with the petitioner nor do they dispute the fact that though they completed 240 days of service as on 30.08.1992 their services were regularized even anterior thereto with effect from 01.07.1992. It is not even the case of the respondents that regularization of the services of Sri T. Ramulu and Sri Y. Raghu is illegal or contrary to law. The only defence taken with regards this plea of discrimination is that, at the time of regularizing the services of Sri T. Ramulu and Y. Raghu, the petitioner was not in the rolls of Medak Region and that he had given an undertaking that his case could be regularized in Hyderabad City Region. Since the entire defence of the respondents rests on the letter of undertaking dated 11.10.1994, it is necessary to extract the said letter in its entirety. Date: 11.10.1994 Regional Manager, Hyderabad City Region, JBS, Picket. Sir, Sub: TRANSFERS – Undertaking to work in Hyderabad City Region – Regularisation as Driver. … I, M. Yadagiri E. 290565: Desgn. Driver selected in MD Division and borne on the panel of Medak Division. I am rendered surplus in Medak Division consequent on the revision of schedules. The Medak Division/depot has directed me to report in Hyderabad City Region for providing the employment on daily wage basis. I am willing to be regularized in Hyderabad City Region. I am aware that I will not be allowed to seek transfer of Hyderabad City Region to any other division until I complete 3hyears of service after regularisation of my services. I am willing to work in any division of Hyderabad City Region. However, I request that I may be posted to Sanath Nagar Division. Yours faithfully, (Signature of Employee). All that the petitioner has stated in this letter is that he was willing to be regularized in Hyderabad City Region, that he was willing to work in any Division of Hyderabad City Region and that he was aware that he would not be allowed to seek transfer from Hyderabad City Region to any other Division until he completed three years of service after regularization of his services. By this letter dated 11.10.1994 the petitioner has not waived his claim for being regularized on par with the other two employees who were appointed along with him. The contention urged on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was regularized in Hyderabad Region, whereas the other two drivers were regularized in Medak District does not stand scrutiny. No statutory provision which enables the A.P.S.R.T.C to regularize employees separately for each District has been brought to the notice of this Court. It is fairly conceded, rightly so, that the Presidential order has no application to the A.P.S.R.T.C nor does the provisions of Article 371-D of the Constitution of India apply. In such circumstances treating District as a unit for the purpose of regularization of services would fall foul of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The mere fact that the other two drivers were regularized in Medak Region would not justify the respondents discriminating against the petitioner and denying him benefit of regularization from 01.07.1992 on par with those two employees who were appointed along with him. It is made clear that this Court has not held that mere completion of 240 days of service would entitle an employee to seek regularization of his services. All that completion of 240 days of continuous service in the twelve months period preceding the date of his termination would entitle a workman is to have the benefit of protection under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. As held in Madhyamik Siksha Parishad, U.P. Vs. Anil Kumar Mishra[1] the mere fact that an employee has put in of 240 days of service does not confer on him the right of regularization. The fact, however, remains that two employees, who were appointed along with the petitioner as drivers, were given the benefit of regularization from that date. Giving them the benefit of regularization on completion of service for a particular duration and denying a similar benefit to the petitioner who was appointed along with them in the same place, on the same date and the same category of posts of drivers, would undoubtedly amount to discrimination and fall foul of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It is only on this short ground that the writ petition is required to be allowed and the respondents directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services with effect from 01.07.1992 without reference to his working in a separate region, on par with Sri T. Ramulu, E.290709 Driver and Y. Raghu, E.290710 Driver in Medak Region. The writ petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________________________ Date: 23.01.2008 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR [1] AIR 1994 SC 1638