IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 20649 of 2000 Between: K. Brahmojee, Conductor, APSRTC., E-271673, Hyderabad-1 Depot. ..... PETITIONER AND The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Hyderabad-1 Depot, Rangareddy District and others .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondents herein to ﬁx the pay scale of the petitioner heren on par with Subauddin Conductor, Staﬀ No.271413 who is presently working in Tandur Depot APSRTC., and to pay the difference of towards the arrears to the petitioner herein and all other benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SADURAJESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 20734 of 2000 Between: 1 Md Hussainmiya S/o Babumiyaa R/o Hyderabad. 2 K Janaki Ramaiah S/o Venkateshwar Rao R/o Hyderabad. 3 R Srinivas Rao, S/o Narsimha Rao R/o Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Tandur Depot, Ranga Reddy District. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Ranga Reddy Region, Imlibun Bus Station , 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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandmaus under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents herein to ﬁx the pay scale for the 1st, 2nd and the 3rd Petitioners herein on par with the person one namely Sabauddin Conductor E.271418 who is working presentat Tandur Depot. A.P.S.R.T.C. R.R.District from the date of his appointment i.e. with eﬀect from 1991 and there is no fault on the part of the 1st, 2nd and the 3rd Petitioners herein and to pay the diﬀerence of arrears on increments on par with sabauddin conductor who worked along with these petitioners prior to nationalisation of the route of private service by the A.P.S.R.T.C. and with all other service beneﬁts and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SADURAJESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.MANMADHA REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 20748 of 2000 Between: M.D.Mahamood, S/o. MD.Ismail, R/o. H. No, 16-57, krishna Nagar Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC., Rep. by its Depot Manager, Pargi Depot, District Ranaga Reddy. 2 The APSRTC., Rep. by its Regional Manager, APSRTC., Ranga Reddy Region, Imlibun Bus Station, 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 may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India directing the respondents herein to ﬁx the pay scale of the petitioner herein on par with the persons who worked in private services and the may be ﬁxed as a Driver on par with Sabauddin Conductor E--271413 who is working at Tandur Depot, APSRTC., and to pay the diﬀerence of pay towards the arrears to the petitioner herein and all other service beneﬁts adn to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the cirucumastances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SADURAJESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 13855 of 2001 Between: J.Bapuji Hyderabad II Depot. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad II Depot, Rangareddy District. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Rangareddy Region, Mahatma Gandhi Bus Station, 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondents herein to ﬁx the pay scale of the petitioner herein on par with Sabauddin Conductor satﬀ No.271413 apart from graduation increment who is present working in Tandur Depot APSRTC., and to pay the diﬀerence of pay towards the arrears to the petitioner herein and all other benefits and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SADURAJESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HONORUABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. Nos.20649, 20734, 20748 of 2000 & 13855 of 2001 COMMON ORDER: Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material on record. Since the common cause of action arose for ﬁling and common relief sought for in these writ petitions, they are disposed of by this common order. These writ petitions are ﬁled seeking a direction to the respondents, by way of Writ of Mandamus, to ﬁx the pay scale of the petitioners on par with one Sabuddin, Conductor, Staﬀ No.271413, who is presently working in Tandur Depot APSRTC and to pay the diﬀerence towards the arrears to the petitioners and all other benefits. The case of the petitioners is that earlier they were working in the private buses in certain routs as Conductors and Drivers, as the case may be, and due to nationalization of those routes they lost their jobs and they became the displaced persons. A notiﬁcation was issued by the Corporation on 11-06-1991 inviting the applications for the post of Conductors and Drivers from the displaced persons of private vehicles, consequent upon nationalization of routes with eﬀect from 01-03-1991. Pursuant to the said notiﬁcation, the petitioners have made their applications seeking their appointments in the Corporation as Conductors and Drivers and later on, interviews were conducted and appointments were made in the year 1991 only, wherein, the petitioners were not given appointments on certain grounds. Thereafter, the petitioners have ﬁled various writ petitions before this Court and eventually they got a direction to the respondent Corporation to consider their case for appointment in the Corporation. Accordingly, in compliance with the order passed by this Court, the petitioners were given appointments in the Corporation as Conductors and Drivers in the year 1994, 1995 and 1996, as the case may be. Now, the claim of the petitioners is that though they are eligible for the appointments in the Corporation in the year 1991, they were denied unnecessarily and later on, pursuant to the directions given by this Court, they were given appointments. During the year 1991 one Sabuddin, who worked along with the petitioners in a private bus, was given appointment. Therefore, they are entitled to the seniority from the year 1991 on par with the said Sabuddin. Though some of the petitioners have made representation before the Corporation seeking seniority on par with the said Sabuddin, the Corporation did not consider the same. Therefore, the petitioners have come up with the instant writ petitions on the ground that for no fault of them, they were denied the appointment on par with the appointment that was made to said Sabuddin. The respondent Corporation has ﬁled its counter denying the averments of the petitioners, inter alia, submitted in fact, earlier, the petitioners were denied for appointment on the ground that they are not genuine displaced persons and among other grounds. But, later on, pursuant to the directions of this Court the petitioners were appointed casually and thereafter their services were regularized and their scale of pay was ﬁxed from the date of their appointments. At this stage, it is not justiﬁed on the part of the petitioners to seek seniority and scale of pay on par with the said Sabuddin and the same cannot be granted. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for no fault of the petitioners they were made to approach this Court because their case was not considered on par with whom were appointed in the year 1991, as the case may be, and denied their right. Therefore, he submits that all the petitioners are entitled to the ﬁxation of their salary on par with Sabuddin, who worked in a private bus along with petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners have made representations to the respondents but they have not been considered and no orders have been passed, so far. Further it is also submitted that in one of the writ petitions the petitioners made no such representation but straightaway they approached this Court. Therefore, he submits that let the petitioners may be given liberty to make afresh representations with all details, facts and ﬁgures, and may seek appropriate relief and in the event of making such representation, let the Corporation be directed to consider the case of the petitioners within a reasonable time and pass appropriate orders. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that the petitioners have accepted the appointment order pursuant to the direction given by this Court without protest. Therefore, they are not entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed. There is no dispute with regard to the factual position that presently the petitioners are working in the respondent Corporation. It is not in dispute that a notiﬁcation was issued by the Corporation inviting applications from the displaced persons in the year 1991 and interviews were conducted and some of the displaced persons were got appointed. It is also not in dispute that one Sabuddin was appointed in the year 1991, who is said to be worked along with the petitioners in a private bus but whereas the petitioners were denied appointment in the year 1991 on certain grounds and later on, pursuant to the directions given by this Court, they were appointed. Now the dispute is only with regard to the seniority and pay ﬁxation on par with the said Sabuddin. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in one of the writ petitions, the petitioners did not make representation seeking to ﬁx the seniority from the date of appointment on par with whom they want to compare and straightaway approached this Court and now some of the petitioners are prepared to make afresh representations giving detailed particulars of the co-employee, with whom they want to compare, and sought a direction to the respondent Corporation to consider the representations made by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, without going into the merits of the case, I am of the view that in the interest of justice, these writ petitions can be disposed of with the following direction: The petitioners are given liberty to make appropriate representation giving all the particulars with reference to the service of the persons with whom they want to compare with reference to the scales and seniority and etc., within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on ﬁling such representation, two months thereafter, the respondent Corporation is directed to dispose of the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. Accordingly, with the above direction, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 30-09-2008 LSK