IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 3124 of 2005 Between: G.Chandram E-800763, Cleaner, S/o.Ramulu, R/o.Gajwel Pragnapoor, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Medak Region, at Sangareddy, Medak District. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Gajwel Pragnapoor, Medak District. .....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 issue a writ of Mandams, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the respondents herein in not regularising the petitioners services on completion of 240 days of service along with his batchmates w.e.f. 5-3-1997 as illegal, unjust and discrimination, contrary to well established principles of lawand as such liable to be set aside with a consequential direction to regularise the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 5-3-1997 instead of 5-2-2003 and to pay the arrears of difference of wages forthwith, and pass such other order or orders as may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment reported in DIVISIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC AND OTEHRS v. P.LAKSHMOJI RAO AND OTHERS[1] and this writ petition is also liable to be disposed of in terms of the said judgment. In view of the same, following the principle laid down in the above judgment, the respondents are directed that if any persons, juniors to the petitioner in the relevant seniority list of the concerned Division/Region have got the benefit of seniority and regularization or/are entitled to get the same by virtue of the judgments that have become final, then the petitioner shall be given the same benefit on the same principle. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 29.2.2008 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.3124 of 2005 29.2.2008 [1] (2004) 2 SCC 433