IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18912 of 1999 Between: Narayana Reddy S/o. Nagi Reddy, R/o. Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport, Nizamabad Region, Nizamabad District. 3 The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Nizamabad. 4 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Kamareddy Depot, Nizamabad District. .....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 call for the records from the 2nd & 3rd Respondent and issue appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of the 2nd & 3rd Respondent in not regularising the service of the petitioner from 1-7-1986 and regularising from 25.10.1990 as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, contrary, discriminatory and also in violation of Article 14,16, & 21 of the Constitution of India and Grant all Consequential benefits and to pass such other or further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondents : SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18912 of 1999 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner, who is working as a Conductor in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, seeks directions by way of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents in not regularizing his services with effect from 01.07.1986 and regularizing only from 25.10.1990, as illegal and seeks consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Conductor on daily wage basis on 05.02.1984 in Nizamabad District. On the ground that he had involved in cash and ticket irregularities on 08.09.1984, 03.01.1985 and 22.01.1985, he was censured and transferred to Bodhan Depot on 05.08.1985. While he was working as such at Bodhan Depot, again on the charge of cash and ticket irregularities, an inquiry was conducted and he was removed from service by Proceedings dated 24.10.1986. As he was unsuccessful in the departmental appeal before the appellate authority, he raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.287 of 1987. The Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad, in its Award dated 31st of May 1990, by recording a finding that the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved and there is no irregularity in conducting the inquiry proceedings, has modified the punishment of removal to that of reinstatement with continuity of service, but without backwages and attendant benefits. Consequent to the Award of the Tribunal, the petitioner was reinstated into service vide Proceedings No.PS/402(6)/90 DVM/NZB, dated 22.10.1990, and thereafter, vide Proceedings dated 27.12.1991, passed in P3/145(1)/91-DVM, Nizamabad, his services were regularized with effect from 25.10.1990. This writ petition is filed in the year 1999, seeking directions for regularisation with effect from 01.07.1986, on the ground that the similarly appointed Conductors along with the petitioner on daily wage basis, were regularized from 01.07.1986. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner was initially engaged on daily wage basis in the year 1984 at Nizamabad Depot and as he was involved in cash and ticket irregularities, he was transferred to Bodhan Depot. It is further stated that even in Bodhan Depot, as he had again indulged in cash and ticket irregularities, he was removed from service by order dated 24.10.1986 and till he was reinstated in to service on 25.10.1990, he was out of service. It is stated that the services of daily wage employees would be regularised based on arising of sanctioned vacancy and with reference to the service rendered by them. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- Corporation. 5. In this writ petition, it is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao that in view of the continuity of service rendered by the petitioner, and as much as the candidates who were appointed along with him in the year 1984 were given the benefit of regularization from 01.07.1986, there is no reason in denying regularization to the petitioner with effect from the above said date. It is submitted that the respondents have no authority to pick and choose the employees for the purpose of regularization and in this connection, reliance is placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M.V.Chalapathi v. Managing Director, APSRTC[1]. 6. On the other hand, it is argued by Smt.B.G.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation that the petitioner was out of service on account of adverse orders suffered by him in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. It is submitted that as he was appointed on daily wage basis, and was subsequently removed from service pursuant to the inquiry conducted and was out of service for certain period during the year 1986, and reinstated only on 25.10.1990 pursuant to the Award of the Tribunal, it is not open for the petitioner to seek any direction for regularization from 01.07.1986. In this connection, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of J.K.Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P.Agarwal[2]. 7. With reference to the above said arguments, it is to be noted in this case that though the petitioner was appointed initially on daily wage basis as a Conductor on 05.02.1984, he was removed from service in the Departmental proceedings, in which, a charge was framed against him that he was involved in cash and ticket irregularities. Though the said order of removal was upheld by the appellate authority, but in the Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner, the Tribunal, while upholding the finding of the inquiry authority that the charge framed against the petitioner was proved, ordered reinstatement without giving any attendant benefits and arrears of salary. 8. In view of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, the only question which needs to be considered is, whether the petitioner is entitled for regularization retrospectively from 01.07.1986, in view of the continuity of service granted by the Tribunal. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was removed from service by order dated 24.10.1986 and till he was reinstated into service on 25.10.1990 consequent to the directions issued by the Tribunal in the Award dated 31.05.1990, he was out of service. Though the learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in M.V.Chalapathi’s case (1 supra) wherein this Court has held that the employer cannot pick and choose the employees for regularization, the said judgment is not helpful to the petitioner in this case, because, he was out of service for certain period. As much as the petitioner has suffered adverse order in disciplinary proceedings and was removed from service, it is not open for him to plead regularization on par with the other candidates, who did not suffer such orders. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner would not render any assistance to him. 9. On the other hand, the effect of reinstatement with continuity of service is considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K.Synthetics Ltd. (2 supra). In para 19 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court has held that where continuity of service is awarded, it shall only be for the purpose of pensionary/retirement benefits, and not for other benefits like increments, promotions, etc. It is to be noticed that once the service of the petitioner is regularised, automatically he is entitled for the benefits of increments, seniority, etc. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot claim regularisation retrospectively merely on the ground that continuity of service is ordered by the Tribunal. Further, as stated in the counter affidavit, regularisation would be taken up as and when sanctioned vacancies arose having regard to the service rendered by the daily wage Conductors, and as the petitioner was out of service during the relevant time, he cannot seek regularization with effect from 01.07.1986, pleading discrimination on the ground that the other persons who were appointed along with him, were regularized. Further, it is also to be noted that though the petitioner was reinstated into service in the year 1990, this writ petition was filed belatedly only in the year 1999. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any valid ground to grant the relief as prayed for. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd January 2009. ajr [1] 1999 (4) ALT 763 (DB) [2] (2007) 2 SCC 433