THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 16790 of 2009 Dated: 28.01.2010 Between: G.Geeraiah, Nizamabad District. … Petitioner And APSRTC, Rep., by its Managing Director, Hyderabad and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 16790 of 2009 O R D E R : The petitioner herein was appointed as Conductor in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation on daily wage basis. It is stated that by order dated 12.08.1987, passed by the Divisional Manager, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, the petitioner’s services were regularised with effect from 01.07.1987. However, subsequently, by order dated 03.01.1988, passed by the Depot Manager, Bodhan Depot, the petitioner was removed from service on the allegations of cash and ticket irregularities allegedly committed by him while conducting the bus on 05.08.1987. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed I.D.No. 666 of 1992 on the file of the Labour Court-II, A.P. Hyderabad. By award dated 30.11.1993, the Labour Court had set aside the order of removal and directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service without break in service but without back wages. The Corporation was also directed to stop three annual increments with cumulative effect after his reinstatement. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said award, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 24.02.1994. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent herein vide proceedings dated 08.08.1994 appointed petitioner along with 23 others, as a Conductor on temporary basis under Regulation 17 of APSRTC Employees Recruitment Regulations, 1966 on pay of Rs.1,645/- per month in the scale of Rs. 1645-55-2140-65-2595-70-3155. In the said proceedings, the petitioner was described as a daily wage employee. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed contending inter alia that in view of the award passed by the Labour court dated 30.11.1993 directing reinstatement without break in service, it was not open to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on temporary basis. It is also contended that in view of the order dated 12.08.1987, the petitioner’s service stood regularised with effect from 01.07.1987 itself and therefore, the respondents erred in treating him as a daily wage employee. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the impugned action of the respondents was sought to be justified placing reliance upon a “note” added to the proceedings dated 12.08.1987 under which while regularising the services of the petitioner along with 57 other daily wage conductors, it was made clear that in case of the daily wage conductors, who were terminated from service or suspended prior to the issue of the said order they should not be appointed on regular basis. It is contended that by the date of the said order dated 12.08.1987, the petitioner was involved in cash and ticket irregularities and subsequently, he was also removed from service and therefore, his services were not regularised along with others with effect from 01.07.1987 as claimed by the petitioner. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon a decision of this Court in W.P.No.27144 of 2005, dated 15.11.2008, contended that in view of the award passed by the Labour Court in favour of the petitioner directing reinstatement without break in service, the petitioner’s services shall be deemed to have been regularised with effect from 01.07.1987 itself under the proceedings dated 12.08.1987. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision of this Court in S.S.NARAYANA V. REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC, ADILABAD[1] wherein it was held that the petitioner therein should be deemed to have been in service during the out of employment period and therefore, the Corporation was bound to take into consideration the period during which the petitioner was out of service. It is also contended that since the petitioner’s services were regularised with effect from 01.07.1987 itself, there is no question of passing any fresh order dated 08.08.1994 appointing him on temporary basis. It is true that certain allegations of cash and ticket irregularities were made against the petitioner while conducting the bus 05.08.1987 and accordingly, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him vide charge sheet dated 05.09.1987. However, the order of removal came to be passed on 30.10.1988. Hence, the petitioner contends that as on the date of order dated 12.08.1987 regularising the services of petitioner with effect from 01.07.1987, he was very much in service and even the disciplinary proceedings were not pending against him. In the circumstances, even if the respondents propose to rely upon the ‘Note’ inserted in the order dated 12.08.1987, an opportunity of hearing ought to have been provided to the petitioner before passing any fresh order. Since no such opportunity was given to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 08.08.1994 so far as the petitioner herein is concerned, is hereby set aside granting liberty to the respondents to institute fresh proceedings after giving due opportunity to the petitioner to make his representation against the proposed action. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 28.01.2010 KLP [1] 2000(3) ALD 13