IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 23150 of 2002 Between: K.Srikanth Kumar S/o Ram Mohan Rao R/o Annavaram, East Godavari District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 Sri Veeravenkata Satyanarayanaswamy Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer & Deputy Collector, Annavaram, East Godavari 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner as Driver from the services of the 2nd respondent without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary etc., and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.V.L.N.SARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent, by way of issuing Writ of Mandamus, in terminating the services of the petitioner as Driver from the services of the 2nd respondent without following due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary. The case of the petitioner is that he joined in the services of the 2nd respondent, Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayanaswamy vari Devasthanam, in September, 1998 as a Cleaner in the Transport Wing of the Devasthanam and he was being paid salary at the rate of Rs.50/- per day. The petitioner having the qualiﬁcations of intermediate and having licence to drive heavy vehicles etc., he made a representation dated 14-07-1999 to the 2nd respondent requesting him to consider his case for appointment as Driver. On considering the said representation, the petitioner was appointed vide proceedings dated 30-07-1999 of the 2nd respondent to work on the buses of the Devasthanam and as such, the petitioner was working, as per the directions of the 2nd respondent. It is further submitted that pursuant to the orders of the Commissioner of Endowments, the 2nd respondent granted permission to its Transport Section to establish a petty workshop. In the said workshop, the petitioner was placed as a Technical Assistant and in-charge of Workshop on a monthly salary of Rs.1,500/-. Since then he was working as in-charge of the said workshop and also working as a Driver on the buses of the Devasthanam. It is also submitted that while the things stood thus the 2nd respondent has abruptly stopped eight buses being operated on the routes from Annavaram to Simhachalam and Kotipalli to Annavaram. The 2nd respondent has accommodated all the eight Conductors operating on the buses in the dormitory and sanitary departments etc. As far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, he was asked orally not to attend the office from 01-10-2002. No notice is issued to the petitioner or any proceedings were served on him regarding termination of his services. Though he was termed as a contract worker under the control of one G. Nageswara Rao, the 2nd respondent has been paying the salaries all through and therefore the petitioner is the employee of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 09-10-2002 to the 2nd respondent requesting him to consider his case for appointment as Driver in any of the vacancies that are existing in the Transport Department. The 2nd respondent having received the said representation has not taken any action, so far. Therefore, the impugned action of the 2nd respondent, in terminating the services of the petitioner without any notice and while the Conductors have been appointed in other departments the case of the petitioner was not considered for appointment as a Driver on any of the buses or any other suitable employment, taking into consideration his qualiﬁcations and experience, is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the instant writ petition. It appears that the claim of the petitioner is that he is an employee of the 2nd respondent and he was terminated from the services without issuing any notice and without following due process of law. It is also his case that the Conductors who become surplus on account of closure of buses were absorbed in other departments but the petitioner was asked not to attend oﬃce. Further no order has been passed on the representation dated 09-10-2002 said to have been submitted by him to the 2nd respondent requesting him to consider his case for appointment. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the averments made in the petition taking into consideration the services rendered by the petitioner in the 2nd respondent and similarly situated employees were absorbed in other departments and the same beneﬁt was not extended to the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with the following direction. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for employment against the post of Driver or any of the equivalent post in the event of similarly situated persons were absorbed in other departments and pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 09-10-2002 said to have been made by the petitioner, in accordance with law. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 29-09-2008 LSK