IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5539 of 2008 Between: P.G.P Rao S/o.Challaiah, C/o.Rozy Khan, 38-30-89/2, Sainagar Marripalem Visakhapatnam ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager A.P.S.R.T.C Visakhapatnam 2 The Divisional Manager APSRTC Visakhapatnam 3 The Depot Manager APSRTC Anakapally Visakhapatnam Dist .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 call for the records from the Respondents herein by issuing the writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the 1st respondent in so far as not considering past Service of the petitioner on causal basis Driver Grade-II with effect from 13-1-1998 to 10-12-2004 for Contrary to and also in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent herein to consider the past service with effect from 13-1- 1998 to 10-12-2004 for the purpose of Regularization on par with his colleagues whose service have been regularized vide proceedings dt.25-2-2005 by considering the petitioner's representation dt.12-2- 2007. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRIDHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5539 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Driver on casual basis in the year 1998. While he was driving a bus on the route from Nivagam to Anakapally on 07.12.2003, an accident took place, resulting in the death of an old man. Thereupon, charges were framed against the petitioner. A departmental enquiry was conducted. Through his order, dated 24.04.2004, the Depot Manger, Anakapalle, 3rd respondent herein disengaged the petitioner. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent was rejected on 14.06.2004. In the review filed before him, the 1st respondent passed an order, dated 10.12.2004, directing that the petitioner be re- engaged afresh as Driver. The said order was complied with and the petitioner is functioning as Driver. This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 1st respondent in not extending the benefit of past service of the petitioner as casual labourer, as illegal and arbitrary. It is contended that though a specific finding was recorded to the effect that the petitioner was not guilty, the benefit of past service was not extended and that the same has resulted in denial of regularization of the service of the petitioner. Heard Sri P.Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. On finding that an accident took place, while the petitioner was driving a bus belonging to the Corporation, charges were framed and the 3rd respondent directed disengagement of the service of the petitioner. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the 2nd respondent. In his order, dated 10.12.2004, in the review filed by the petitioner, the 1st respondent made the following observation: The explanation of the Ex.Cl.Driver is some what believable and convincing. It is admitted that as stated by him, no driver will move the bus when there was a pedestrian in front of his bus, which itself proves his innocence. But, anyhow, the driver is also slightly responsible for the cause of accident i.e. he would have anticipated the movement of the pedestrian crossing the road, which he failed to do. I have also perused the passengers statement, in which, it is clearly stated that the deceased tried to cross the road on the front side of the trekker in a hastily manner and hence, this accident occurred. However, to mitigate his hardship, I had gone through his past record, which reveals that he never involved in any serious accident cases and this is the first accident case, in which, he was disengaged from the service in his entire service. From this, it is evident that the 1st respondent was convinced with the explanation offered by the petitioner as to the cause of accident. The past record of the petitioner was also found to be clean. The accident occurred on account of the attempt made by the deceased to cross the road in front of the trucker in hasty manner. On the basis of this observation, the 1st respondent directed re-engagement of the petitioner, but as a fresh candidate. Though the petitioner had to avail the remedy of reference of industrial disputes under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’), if he feels aggrieved by any part of the order passed by the 1st respondent, this Court is of the view that in the limited context of extending the benefit of continuity of service, without any financial benefit, the petitioner need not be driven to the Labour Court. Further, unlike the remedy under Section 2-A(2) of the Act, the petitioner had to depend upon the espousal of the cause by the Employees’ Union. This Court is of the view that no hardship would be caused to the respondents, in case the petitioner is extended the benefit of past service, for the limited purpose of absorption/regularization. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed in part, directing that the petitioner shall be entitled for the benefit of past service up to the date of re- engagement, in the context of regularization/absorption into service, without any corresponding monetary benefit. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 14.03.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{BMR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5539 of 2008 Date: 14.03.2008 JSU