THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.18481 of 2005 Dated:25.01.2008 Between Syed Hussain …..Petitioner and 1.Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep., by its Managing Director, Musheerabad Hyderabad and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.18481 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing services of the petitioner on par with his juniors and other co-employees by creating artificial breaks as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the award passed by the Labour Court, Anantapur in I.D.No.71 of 2000 dated 9.7.2002. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as Driver in the respondent-Corporation after subjecting to due selection process with effect from 4.2.1997. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner raised a dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur. The Labour Court passed an award on 9.7.2002 setting the aside the termination order and directed the respondent- Corporation to appoint the petitioner afresh. The case of the petitioner is that though the award was passed on 9.7.2002 and became enforceable by 9.8.2002 i.e., after completion of 30 days, he was not given any employment till 16.5.2003. However, on 16.5.2003, he was reinstated afresh. Further, on 30.7.2003 he was disengaged, and re-engaged on 13.1.2004 and since then he has been working continuously. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that though he is entitled to reinstatement immediately after 9.8.2002, he was reinstated into service only on 16.5.2003 and further the services of the persons, who are juniors and appointed along with him, were regularized whereas his services are not regularized till date. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated that the casual drivers cannot be regularized on mere completion of 240 days. The regularization of services will be subject to the availability of vacancies and the seniority. The petitioner has no legal right to claim regularization as held by the Apex Court in several civil appeals. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the material made available on record. Firstly, there is no denial on the allegation that there was some delay on the part of the respondents in reinstating the petitioner afresh. Secondly, there is no denial that the juniors to the petitioner were regularized except saying that the petitioner was removed from service and therefore, he is not entitled for regularization. Under these circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services, if the services of his juniors have been regularized after 9.8.2002, and pass appropriate orders, as per law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ___________ 25-01-2008 rkk