IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 18727 of 2007 Between: T. Sathish S/o. Raghava Rao Devasthanam, Annavaram E.G. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Endowments, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 2 Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Devasthanam, Annavaram, Rep. by its Executive Officer Annavaram, E.G. District. 3 The Trust Board of Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Devasthanam, Annavaram, E.G. 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 issue a Writ or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and unjutified and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner in accordance with G.O.M.S.No. 212 without reference to the cut of date with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SriY.V.Srinivasan Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Endowments The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner states that he has been working as Driver on N.M.R. basis in Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Devasthanam, the second respondent herein, since 1996. He contends that some of the Drivers, who were engaged along with him, were appointed on regular basis and that he was not extended such benefit. He claims to have made a representation in this regard and complains that no action has been taken thereon. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner contends that the second respondent has regularized the services of two N.M.R. Drivers, by name M.Prasad and Ch.Prakash Reddy. The question as to whether the petitioner has the same length of service as N.M.R. and whether he deserves to be extended the same benefit, needs to be considered by the respondents. If the petitioner stands on the same footing as that of two employees referred to above, there is no reason why he should be discriminated in the matter of extending the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1994, if there exists any vacancy. The representation of the petitioner cannot be kept pending indefinitely. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regular appointment as Driver against existing vacancy, as was done, in the case of other N.M.R. Drivers, who are said to be engaged along with the petitioner. This exercise shall be completed, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:19.04.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}