IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 9494 of 1999 Between: B.Pushpa Raju, S/o.B.Venkataiah, R/o.11/174, Sumitra Nagar, Badvel Mandal, Cuddapah Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Regional Manager, Cuddapah Region, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. 3 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Depot Manager, Badvel Depot, Badvel (M), Cuddapah 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 may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in regularizing the petitioner’s service only w.e.f. 21.11.1987 by its Proceedings No.E1/232(44)/87-BDVL, dt:21/11/1987 instead of his Initial appointment i.e. w.e.f. 11/5/1983 as wholly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and discriminative and violative of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to regularize the service of the petitioner as Conductor from the date of his Initial appointment i.e. w.e.f.11/5/83 instead of 21/11/87 on par with other similarly situated persons whose services were regularized with retrospective effect i.e. from the date of Initial appointment only for the purpose of promotion, seniority, increments and all other attendant benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MS.B.MALLESWARI Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.W.V.S.RAJESWARI The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.9494 OF 1999 ORDER: The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is squarely covered by a Judgment of the Supreme Court in Divisional Manager, APSRTC v. P. Lakshmoji Rao[1]. In view of the same, this writ petition is also liable to be disposed of in terms of the said Judgment. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents that, if any of the Conductors, junior to the petitioner 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 petitioner, who is senior to them, shall be given the same benefit on the same principle. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU 13th March, 2008 IBL To 1. Two CCs to 2. Two CD Copies [1] (2004) 2 SCC 433