IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1350 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 29/02/2008 in WP NO : 27359 OF 1998 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The Managing Director, APSRTC,Musheerabad,Hyderabad 2 The Regional Manager,APSRTC,Visakhapatnam 3 The Depot Manager,APSRTC, Maddilapalem Bus Depot Visakhapatnam District ..... APPELLANTS AND N.Venkateshwar RAo S/o.Venkata RAju R/o.Maddipalem, Visakhapatnam District .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: MR.KAMBHAM MADHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD The Division Bench of this Court made the following : (Judgment follows 2nd page) THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1350 of 2008 J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon’ble Mrs. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The writ appeal is filed against the order dated 29-2-2008 passed by the learned single Judge in WP.No.27359 of 1998 which is filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioner to the post of ADC/Controller on par with his juniors viz., TSN Murthy, E.No.86063 and P.S.Murthy, E.No.86082 who were promoted w.e.f. 12-11-1987 and 13-11-1987 respectively and also regularizing his services as Asst.Depot Clerk w.e.f. 07-5-1988 the date on which his juniors were so promoted. 2. The case of the respondent-petitioner in the writ petition is that he is presently working as Assistant Depot Clerk in APSRTC. He was appointed as Conductor as the private service in which he was engaged was nationalized and the service was taken over by the APSRTC. Thus, he came into the service of the APSRTC for the first time on 30-11-1978 and upon noticing that he was less than 21 years of age, the APSRTC regularized his services w.e.f. 03-10-1979, the date on which he had completed 21 years of age. Subsequently, I.D.No.16 of 1990 was filed. Since the Labour Court rejected the claim. WP.No.20944 of 1995 came to be filed before this Court. The Division Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 15-10-1997 held that since he was above 18 years of age as on 30-11-1978, as such, he is entitled to claim regularization from the said date. In pursuance to the said order, the Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam, passed orders dated 21-1-1998 regularizing his services as conductor w.e.f.30-11-1978 and on 21-4-1998, notification was issued incorporating his name in the seniority list at serial No. 157-A based upon the date of regularization of the services as 30-11-1978. The other two individuals, Sri PSN Murthy and Sri TS.Murthy who were appointed as Conductors on 01-12-1978 were promoted as Asst. Depot Clerks on 12-11-1987 and 13-11-1987 respectively and the above two individuals have been recruited as conductors a day later to his date of regular appointment as Conductor being 30-11-1978, so they are liable to be treated as his juniors and when they were so promoted he was illegally denied such a promotion with effect from those dates. Hence, the cause of action arose for the respondent- petitioner to file the writ petition claiming the same benefits that are extended to Sri PSN Murthy and Sri TS Murthy. 3. The learned single Judge after having gone through the record produced by the learned standing counsel for the APSRTC observed that the above two individuals have been treated as regular Asst.Depot Clerks from 07-5-1988 as they have been appointed subsequent to the regularizing of service of the respondent as conductor i.e., w.e.f., 30-11-1978 and 21-4-1998. When his services were regularized w.e.f. 30-11-1998, so the respondent stood on par with the other two persons who were promoted as Asst.Depot Clerks on 12-11-1987 and 13-11-1987 respective and since the above two individuals have been recruited as conductors a day later to his date of regular appointment as conductor being 30-11-1978 and they are liable to be treated as his juniors. Therefore, the benefits accrued thereon was not extended to the respondent-petitioner. The learned single Judge after perusal of the record held that he is not entitled to be paid the actual monetary benefits but by way of fixation of his seniority etc., and that he will be deemed to have been promoted as Asst.Depot Clerk from 07-5-1988 and those benefits will accrue to him from the month of February 2008 onwards. 4. Even though the standing counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-corporation has contended that he is not entitled for the benefit for the reason that he has not been promoted and other two persons were promoted as Asst.Depot Clerks on 12- 11-1987 and 13-11-1987 respectively. But however, we do not accept the arguments advanced by the learned standing counsel for the reason that the respondent has been confirmed in the post of Conductor by virtue of the judgment dated 15-10-1997 passed by the Division Bench of this Court and the said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court having become final and binding. 5. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order dated 29-2-2008 passed by the learned single Judge in WP.No.27359 of 1998 needs no interference and accordingly the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. _____________________________ JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY. 16-2-2008. I s L – K s H ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {TRK}