IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6048 of 2009 Between: G.Shanker S/o.Maisaiah R/o.1-68, Cherla Ankireddypalli, Chinnakodur Mandal, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C. Musheerabad, Hyderabad, represented by its Managing Director. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Medak Region, Sangareddy, Medak District. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. G.P.P. Depot, Pregnapoor, Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondents:MR. V.PADMANABHA RAO FOR SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 Corporation in not regularizing the services of the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment and not paying the regular scale of pay in pursuance of orders, dated 15.10.2007 and 03.11.2007 of respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively. The petitioner claims to have applied for the post of Conductor in pursuance of notification issued by respondent No.2 on 27.01.1998. He claimed that though he was selected for the post of Conductor on regular basis, he was engaged on daily wage basis. He averred that having regard to the repeated requests made by the petitioner, respondent No.2 issued order, dated 15.10.2007 regularizing the petitioner’s services as Conductor with effect from 05.10.2007. In pursuance of the said order, respondent No.3 issued consequential order, dated 03.11.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said two orders having been passed, regular pay scale is not being paid to the petitioner. His further grievance is that though he was selected on regular basis in pursuance of the employment notification, his services were regularized only with effect from 05.10.2007 instead of from the date of his first engagement on daily wage basis. Though no counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents, Sri V.Padmanabha Rao, learned counsel appearing for Smt. B.G.Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted on the basis of para-wise remarks that as the petitioner suffered punishment in the past, the pay scale is not being paid in spite of the above-mentioned orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3. He further submitted that the respondents are proposing to issue appropriate proceedings in order to ensure that order, dated 15.10.2007 passed by respondent No.2 is implemented and pay scale is fixed for the petitioner. As regards the regularization, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the same. After hearing Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to payment of regular salary in terms of orders, dated 15.10.2007 and 03.11.2007 passed by respondents 2 and 3 respectively. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner will be sanctioned pay scale at the earliest, respondents 2 and 3 are directed to finalise the said issue, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As regards the claim of the petitioner for regularization, the petitioner claimed to have made a representation on 27.01.2009. As the said representation is pending, I refrain from expressing any opinion on this claim. Instead, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner for regularizing the petitioner’s services with effect from the date of his first engagement as daily wage Conductor. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.7907 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th APRIL, 2009. kvni