IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 13724 of 1999 Between: B.Mutyalu, S/o. Lingam, Post & Village: Uppulur, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. State Road Transport Corpn; Reptd. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Nizamabad Region, Nizamabad. 3 The District Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Bus 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 will be pleased to issue appropriate Writ or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents in not counting the period from March, 1977 to March, 1979 in the cadre of Conductor as arbitrary, unjust, in violation of Articles- 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to my original appointment of conductor through Procgs.No.E1/502(10)/76-KR, dated: 9-2-1997 and consequently direct the Respondents to treat the above period in the post of Conductor along with all consequential beneﬁts in the interest of justice and fair play. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RAGHU} O R D E R:- This writ petition is ﬁled challenging the action of the respondents in not counting the period of service from March, 1977 to March, 1979 rendered by the petitioner as being in the cadre of Conductor. The petitioner was selected for the post of Conductor by the Selection Committee of the 1st respondent-organization namely, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. The selection is said to have been made on 3/4.1.1977 and in pursuance of the same, the Divisional Manager, Karimnagar is said to have issued the proceedings dated 9.2.1977. A reading of the proceedings would show that the petitioner herein and one B.Anantha Rao were provisionally selected by the Departmental Selection Committee at Nizamabad for the post of Conductor and they were directed to be given training for a period of ten days. The proceedings further state that the two candidates should thereafter be appointed as per requirement. It is speciﬁcally stated that the appointment of staﬀ should not be made in excess of the requirement. The petitioner’s case is that from the date of his joining duty, he was asked to discharge the duties of a Conductor and also those of a Booking Clerk. He claims that he raised a query in this regard before the 3rd respondent-District Manager, APSRTC, Nizambabad and was assured that there would be no diﬀerence between the posts. He also stated in his aﬃdavit that the 3rd respondent informed him that the terms of his post as a Conductor would not be eﬀected. The petitioner complained that he came to know that his seniority would be counted only from March, 1979 when a seniority list was prepared by the 1st respondent- organization in respect of Conductors working at Nizamabad. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner did not even state as to when this seniority list was issued. The petitioner goes on to state that when he made an enquiry in the oﬃce of the 2 nd respondent-Regional Manager, APSRTC, he came to know that the period of service rendered by him as a Booking Clerk from March, 1977 to March, 1979 would not be counted towards service as a Conductor. The petitioner claims to have made a representation to the 2nd respondent on 9.10.1997 explaining the facts as stated by him in the writ aﬃdavit and requesting that his seniority be counted from the date of his initial appointment as Conductor. The petitioner placed reliance on the service regulations of the respondent-organization which state to the eﬀect that seniority of a person shall be determined from the date of his ﬁrst appointment to such service, class and category. The 1st respondent-organization ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit through its Law Oﬃcer, who claims authority to depose on behalf of the respondents as per Resolution No.125/94, dated 8.9.1994. It is stated in the counter that though the petitioner was selected for the post of a Conductor, he was appointed as a Booking Clerk as per the Oﬃce Order No.P1/502(1)/77-NZB, dated 17.3.1977 of the Depot Manager, Nizamabad. It is stated that the petitioner was granted promotion to the post of Conductor vide order dated 8.3.1979. The counter aﬃdavit further states that the petitioner did not raise any objection after his appointment as a Booking Clerk though the salary of a Booking Clerk is lower than that of a Conductor. The reason as to why the petitioner was appointed as a Booking Clerk instead of as a Conductor is not forth-coming from the counter and it is stated that owing to the lapse of 20 years, the 1st respondent- Corporation ﬁnds it diﬃcult to say under what circumstances he was appointed as a Booking Clerk though he was selected for the post of Conductor. The counter further elucidates that even at the time of the petitioner’s promotion to the post of Conductor in the year 1979, the petitioner did not raise any objection or ask for counting of the period of service from the date of his initial appointment. The 1st respondent- organization denied that any assurance was ever held out to the petitioner in this regard by the Oﬃcer of the respondent- organization. The counter aﬃdavit speciﬁcally states that no representation of the petitioner is pending with the 1st respondent-organization. It is speciﬁcally contended that the petitioner cannot raise the issue, now sought to be advanced by way of the present writ petition, after a lapse of 20 years. The Regulation 3(a) of the A.P.S.R.T.C. Employees’ Service Regulations, 1964 relied upon by the petitioner is said to be inapplicable to the claim of the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner was appointed as a Booking Clerk and not as a Conductor. I have heard Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.B.G.Uma Devi, learned counsel for the respondents. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the proceedings dated 9.2.1977 categorically state that the petitioner was selected for the post of Conductor, it is not open to the 1st respondent-organization to now claim that the petitioner was appointed as a Booking Clerk. He vehemently contended that the petitioner, being a lowly employee of the 1st respondent-organization, could not agitate the issue earlier and it was only when his juniors were promoted, he came to know of the injustice done to him, and accordingly, he made a representation to the 2nd respondent on 9.10.1997. He further stated that in spite of the interim order granted by this Court on 8.7.1999 directing the respondents to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders, the respondent-organization has neither considered it nor issued any reply to it. Therefore, the learned counsel prays that a direction be given to the 1st respondent-organization to take into account the period of service rendered by the petitioner from March, 1977 to March 1979 for the purpose of computing his seniority in the cadre of Conductor. Refuting the said arguments, it is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the writ petition is belated inasmuch as the petitioner approached this Court after a lapse of 20 years, clearly disentitling him to any relief. The learned counsel has placed before me photocopies of the proceedings dated 17.3.1977 and 8.3.1979 whereby the petitioner was appointed as a Booking Clerk and later promoted to the post of Conductor. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the said proceedings were not served on the petitioner, the irrefutable fact remains that the petitioner actually worked as a Booking Clerk during the period March, 1977 to March, 1979. If at all the petitioner had a grievance with regard to his appointment not being in conformity with the proceedings dated 9.2.1977, the petitioner ought to have agitated the same immediately. It is noticed that in the proceedings dated 9.2.1977, the Divisional Manager, Karimnagar of the 1st respondent-organization directed that the persons named therein, being the petitioner and one Sri B.Anantha Rao should be given appointment after the period of their training. It is also speciﬁcally stated that excess appointments over and above the requirement should not be made. It appears that in pursuance of this proceeding, which ﬁnds mention in the reference portion, the order dated 17.3.1977 was issued appointing the petitioner as a Booking Clerk along with three others. Having been appointed as a Booking Clerk and having continued as such for two years, it is not open to the petitioner to raise the issue with regard to how this period of service is to be treated after the lapse of 20 years. The fact is that the petitioner’s alleged only representation with regard to this issue was made on 9.10.1997. According to the respondents’ counter, which was ﬁled on 17.9.1999, no such representation is available on its file. If at all there was any non-compliance with the interim order of this Court, the petitioner ought to have taken necessary steps at that point of time when the counter was field denying the existence of the petitioner’s representation. Having failed to do so, it is not open to the petitioner to raise this issue at the present stage. Be that as it may, the facts of the case as narrated hereinabove clearly show that the petitioner accepted the treatment meted out to him in the year 1977 and he was blissfully silent and did not raise any objection with regard to how he was treated, though he had knowledge about the proceedings dated 9.2.1977. There is no whisper in the writ aﬃdavit as to why the petitioner did not choose to raise this issue either before the 1st respondent-organization or before this Court for all these years. I am therefore, of the considered opinion that the issues sought to be raised by the petitioner are highly belated and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this sole ground. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, J 21st August, 2008 bcj