IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.19939 of 1999 Between: 1 D.Devamma W/o.Laxman R/o.Nizamabad. 2 K.Savithri W/o.Poshetty R/o.Nizamabad. 3 P.Laxmi W/o.Chinnaiah R/o.Nizamabad. 4 Kondamma W/o.Lingaiah R/o.Nizamabad. 5 Paka Laxmi W/o.Late Rajaiah R/o.Nizamabad. 6 T.Mallavva W/o.Mallaiah R/o.Nizamabad. 7 Durgamma W/o.Bhumaiah R/o.Nizamabad. 8 G.Rajamani W/o.Lingam R/o.Nizamabad. 9 Shakuntala W/o.Narayana R/o.Nizamabad 10 Gangaram S/o.Gangaram R/o.Nizamabad. 11 K.Mallaiah S/o.Ilaiah R/o.Nizamabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kakatiya Region, Karimnagar. 3 The Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nizamabad Division, Nizamabad. 4 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.., Nizamabad Depot, Nizamabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue any Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the Petitioners for regularising the services as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents herein to regularise the services of the petitioners forthwith in the interest of justice and equity and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.V.TULASI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SMT B.G. UMA DEVI (SC FOR A.P.S.R.T.C.) The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.19939 of 1999 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioners, who are 11 in number, seek directions by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering their claims for regularization of their services as illegal and arbitrary. 2. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though they are discharging the duties as that of regular employees in the Corporation, their services are not being regularized and they are not being extended the scales of pay applicable to the said category of employees. 3. However, during the course of arguments, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents produced a copy of the proceedings bearing No.L1/785(24)/99-RM:NZB, dated 16.12.1999, issued by the Regional Manager, Nizamabad, by which the respondents have considered the case of the petitioners and rejected. In the said order, it is stated that the petitioners are not on direct employment of the Corporation and they are employed by the Contractor, to whom their services were entrusted by the Corporation. 4. As much as the claims of the petitioners were already considered and rejected by the aforesaid proceedings dated 16.12.1999, it is open to the petitioners to seek redressal of their grievances by questioning the said proceedings, but no direction can be given as sought for in this writ petition by way of Mandamus. 5. Accordingly, keeping open to the petitioners to redress their grievances by resorting to approach the Industrial Tribunal or any other appropriate forum, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY 25th August, 2008 IBL