THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.11650 OF 1999 DATED: 08.04.2010 Between: M.S.V. Narasinga Rao .. Petitioner And 1. A.P. TRANSCO, rep. by its Director, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad., and others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.11650 OF 1999 ORDER : The petitioner herein was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in the erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board in the Electricity Revenue Office, Vizianagaram on 3.7.1970. Challenging the action of the respondents in terminating his services on 14.11.1974 for want of vacancy, the petitioner filed I.D.No.30 of 1987 before the Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and by Award dated 25.5.1988 reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service was ordered. Though the said award was challenged before this Court by the respondents by filing W.P.No.11396 of 1988, the said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 22.7.1996. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was reinstated into service. Thereafter by Memo dated 6.3.1998 issued by the Superintending Engineer (Operation Circle), Vizianagaram, the petitioner was informed that his services were regularized in the cadre of L.D.C. w.e.f. 12.10.1988. However, in the seniority list published thereafter the petitioner’s name was not included. Moreover, by order dated 5.2.1999 the 4th respondent herein who was much junior to the petitioner in the cadre of L.D.C. was promoted as U.D.C. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made several representations requesting the respondents to promote him to the cadre of U.D.C. and grant him the seniority as per his regularization in the service w.e..f. 12.10.1988. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents to consider his request, the present writ petition has been filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the writ petition is pending from the year 1999, the respondents did not choose to file counter-affidavit. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the material placed before this Court which revealed that the petitioner’s services in the cadre of L.D.C. were regularized w.e.f. 12.10.1988, I find force in the petitioner’s contention that the respondents 1 to 3 are bound to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of U.D.C. with effect from the date when his immediate junior was promoted. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders fixing his seniority in the cadre of U.D.C. as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order and intimate the same to the petitioner. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 08.04.2010 gbs