HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Writ Petition No.23073 of 2000 14th September, 2010 Between :- Shaik Chand .. Petitioner And A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. By its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad And 2 others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Writ Petition No.23073 of 2000 ORDER:- The petitioner, a driver in the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (A.P.S.R.T.C.), challenges the proceedings dated 20-11-1996 whereby the A.P.S.R.T.C. refused to consider his case for regularization of services by counting his service from the initial date of his appointment i.e., 21-12-1983. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a driver initially on 18-4-1983 but his services were thereafter dis-engaged on 1-7-1983. He claims to have been re-appointed on 21-12-1983. His services were regularized w.e.f. 1-8-1985. His complaint is that others similarly situated, namely, one N.Chandraiah and one J.G.Sastry, who were in fact juniors to him, were granted continuity of service from the date of their initial appointment. Aggrieved by the denial of the same benefit to him, he filed the present Writ Petition. In its counter, the A.P.S.R.T.C. admitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as a driver w.e.f. 18-4-1983 and that his services were terminated w.e.f., 1-7-1983 for want of vacancy. According to the A.P.S.R.T.C., he was thereafter appointed on contract basis on 31-1- 1984 and his services were regularized w.e.f., 1-8-1985. The A.P.S.R.T.C. denied the petitioner’s allegations with regard to the dissimilar treatment of the other employees similarly situated, N.Chandraiah and J.G.Sastry. The A.P.S.R.T.C. therefore sought to support the impugned proceedings dated 20-11-1996 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Perusal of the impugned proceedings reflects that the A.P.S.R.T.C. admitted therein that the petitioner was appointed on 21- 12-1983 and not on 31-12-1983 as stated in the counter. Further, the proceedings reflect that the A.P.S.R.T.C. was willing to consider and sanction increments to the petitioner by taking into account the uninterrupted contract service rendered by him from 21-12-1983 to 31-7-1985 i.e., up to the date of his regularization in service. Having stated so, the A.P.S.R.T.C. strangely contradicted itself by saying that the service rendered by the petitioner from 21-12-1983 would not be considered for sanctioning Special Grade, akin to awarding of an increment, which admittedly the A.P.S.R.T.C. was willing to grant, taking into account the service rendered by the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment. Be that as it may, the proceedings issued by the A.P.S.R.T.C. in favour of N.Chandraiah and J.G.Sastry clearly demonstrate that they were similarly situated. In fact, they entered into the service of the A.P.S.R.T.C. after the petitioner, having been appointed on 9-2-1984. However, pursuant to the orders of this Court in the Writ Petitions filed by them, the A.P.S.R.T.C. accorded them the benefit of regularization in service taking into account the date, on which they completed the requisite period of 240 days in service. The Supreme Court in DIVISIONAL MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C. AND OTHERS v. P.LAKSHMOJI RAO AND OTHERS[1] while dealing with a similar situation directed as follows:- “If any of the conductors, junior to the respondents in the relevant seniority list of the concerned Division/Region, have got the benefit of seniority and regularization OR are entitled to get the same by virtue of the judgments that have become final, then the respondents who are seniors to them, shall be given the same benefit on the same principle.” As the petitioner’s case falls squarely within the aforestated observations of the Supreme Court, there is no reason as to why the petitioner should be discriminated against when his juniors have been granted the benefit of regularization taking into account the past service rendered by them. There shall accordingly be a direction to the A.P.S.R.T.C. to take into account the past service rendered by the petitioner from the initial date of his appointment i.e., 21-12-1983 and give effect to his regularization in service from the date on which he completed 240 days in service. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the above direction. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ Sanjay Kumar, J 14th September, 2010 smr [1] (2004) 2 SCC 433