IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 4744 of 1999 Between: 1. T.V.Konsaiah, S/o. Kotaiah, R/o. Kanigiri Depot, Kanigiri, Prakasam District. 2. D.Nagaraju, S/o. Venkataiah, R/o. Kanigiri Depot, Kanigiri, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONERS. AND 1 The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Prakasam Region, Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C, Kanigiri Depot, Kanigiri, Prakasam 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 directing the respondents herein to regularise the services of the Writ Petitioners as Conductors by the date of their initial appointment dt. 1.11.86 and 1.11.86 respectively by declaring the proceedings dt. 13.12.96 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the orders passed by the Division bench in 1998 (2) ALT Page No. 447 and also violative of Article14 of the consitution of India and pass such other order or orders deem think fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.V.MALLIK Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: The relief sought for in this writ petition is to regularize the services of the petitioners as conductors from the date of initial appointment dated 01.11.1986 declaring the proceedings dated 13.12.1996 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the orders passed by the Division Bench in 1998(2) ALT page 447. 2. Sri V.Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioners, would fairly submit that, subsequently, the Supreme Court in The Divisional Manager, APSRTC and others Vs. P.Lakshmoji Rao and others[1] while holding that no employees could claim right of having their services regularized from the date of their initial appointment as daily wage employees, however, observed that if any Conductors, juniors to the petitioners in the relevant seniority list of the concerned Division/Region, had got the benefit of seniority and regularization OR were entitled to get the same by virtue of judgments that had become final, then the petitioners who were seniors to them, should be given the same benefit on the same principle. 3. This writ petition is also liable to be disposed of in terms of, and in accordance with, the aforesaid orders of the Supreme Court in P.Lakshmoji Rao and there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for being conferred the benefit of seniority if any driver/conductor, junior to them in the relevant seniority list, had got the benefit of seniority and regularization prior to them. 4. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J) 26th February, 2008 v v To 1.2 CCs to 2.2 CD copies [1] (2004)2 Supreme Court Cases 433