IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 6305 of 2008 Between: B. Aruna, W/o. Anantha Padmanabha Raju, APSRTC, Hayathnagar Bus Depot, Hayathnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad Division, Gowliguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Hayathnagar Bus Depot, Hayathnagar, Hyderabad. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Ibrahimpatnam Bus Depot, Ibrahimpatnam, Hyderabad. .....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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondent No. 1 herein ordering fresh reinstatement as casual conductor is bad, arbitrary, illegal and against to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to treat the reinstatement of the petitioner by proceedings dt. 11-09-2002 of respondent NO. 1 herein as reinstatement with continuity of service with all consequential service benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a casual Conductor on 22.02.2001. The Depot Manager, Ibrahimpatan Depot, the third respondent herein, removed her from the list of casual Conductors, vide Office Order, dated 25.04.2002, on the ground that she was unauthorisedly absent for a period of one month. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Manager, the first respondent herein. The appeal was allowed, through the order, dated 11.09.2002. However, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated as casual Conductor, Grade-II afresh on daily wage basis. The petitioner contends that on account of denial of the benefit of past service, she is not being extended the facility of regularization of service. She assails the order of removal, as modified by the first respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is true that the appointment of the petitioner was only as a casual Conductor. But, even for removal of such employees, the Corporation is under obligation to hold domestic enquiry. In REGIONAL MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C. v Md.JAVED PASHA[1], a Division Bench of this Court took the view that before the name of a casual employee is removed from the approved list, domestic enquiry must be conducted. If the said principle is applied, the Office Order, dated 25.04.2002, becomes untenable. Be that as it may, the first respondent has set aside the said Office Order, but directed the reinstatement of the petitioner afresh. The same has resulted in the denial of benefit of past service to the petitioner. Whatever may be the justification in denying the monetary benefits to the petitioner, the past service rendered by her becomes relevant and important, in the context of regularization of her service. Further, the charge is only about the unauthorized absenteeism and the medical certificates filed by the petitioner disclose that she suffered from serious anemia. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, limited to the extent that the petitioner shall be entitled to count her past service in the context of regularization of her service and that she shall not be entitled to any monetary benefit on account of this. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ 26.03.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} [1] 2005(4) ALT 127 (D.B.)