IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.Nos.15477 and 15493 of 2008 WRIT PETITION No. 15477 of 2008 Between: 1 P.V.V. Mohan, S/o.Narasimhapaddu, E-457620 Working at Maddilapalem APSRTC Depot, Which is under the control of R1 & R2 All are R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 2 N. Rami Reddy, S/o. Satyanarayana Reddy, E-458151 Working at Maddilapalem APSRTC Depot, Which is under the control of R1 & R2 All are R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 3 D. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Rama Rao, E-455908 Working at Maddilapalem APSRTC Depot, Which is under the control of R1 & R2 All are R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 4 N. Nageswar Rao, S/o. Venkanna E-455925 Working at Maddilapalem APSRTC Depot, Which is under the control of R1 & R2 All are R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 5 M.B.Rao, S/o. Laxmiyya, E-455901, Working at Maddilapalem APSRTC Depot, Which is under the control of R1 & R2 All are R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 6 Y. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. siva Ramaiah, E-457706, Working at Maddilapalem APSRTC Depot, Which is under the control of R1 & R2 All are R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 7 N.V.S. Naidu, S/o. Guru Naidu, E-455919, Working at Maddilapalem APSRTC Depot, Which is under the control of R1 & R2 All are R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 8 G.V. Rao, S/o. Rajulu Dora E-455909, Working at Maddilapalem APSRTC Depot, Which is under the control of R1 & R2 All are R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 9 P.S.N. Raju, S/o. Ram Murthy Raju, E-456852 Working at Maddilapalem APSRTC Depot, Which is under the control of R1 & R2 All are R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 10 M. Satyam, S/o. Ramulu, E-455915, Working at Maddilapalem APSRTC Depot, Which is under the control of R1 & R2 All are R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 11 V. Rama Rao, S/o. Viswanadham, E-455756, Working at Maddilapalem APSRTC Depot, Which is under the control of R1 & R2 All are R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 12 Ch. V.R. Krishna, S/o. Rama Rao, E-457632, Working at Maddilapalem APSRTC Depot, Which is under the control of R1 & R2 All are R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 13 V. Sree Ramulu, S/o. Varahalu,E-457622, Working at Maddilapalem APSRTC Depot, Which is under the control of R1 & R2 All are R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 14 V.N. Bhushanam, S/o. Satyanarayana E-457662, Working at Maddilapalem APSRTC Depot, Which is under the control of R1 & R2 All are R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 15 G.G.S. Rao, S/o. Chinnaiah Dora E-457383 Working at Maddilapalem APSRTC Depot, Which is under the control of R1 & R2 All are R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 16 T.S. Rao, S/o. Appala Swamy, E-457679, Working at Maddilapalem APSRTC Depot, Which is under the control of R1 & R2 All are R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 17 G. Narayana Rao, S/o. Appala Swamy, E-451361, Working at Maddilapalem APSRTC Depot, Which is under the control of R1 & R2 All are R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 18 A.M. Rao, S/o. Raja Rao, E-457012, Working at Maddilapalem APSRTC Depot, Which is under the control of R1 & R2 All are R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 19 N.A. Konda, S/o. Appa Rao, E-455904, Working at Maddilapalem APSRTC Depot, Which is under the control of R1 & R2 All are R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 20 U.Y. Rao, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, E-455821, Working at Maddilapalem APSRTC Depot, Which is under the control of R1 & R2 All are R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 21 G.J. Rao, S/o. Narayana, E-455605, Working at Maddilapalem APSRTC Depot, Which is under the control of R1 & R2 All are R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 22 B.A.N. Raju, S/o. Narayana Raju, E-455798, Working at Maddilapalem APSRTC Depot, Which is under the control of R1 & R2 All are R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 23 P.T. Rao, S/o. Sree Ramulu, E-455835, Working at Maddilapalem APSRTC Depot, Which is under the control of R1 & R2 All are R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 24 K.S. Reddy, S/o. papayya E-455916, Working at Maddilapalem APSRTC Depot, Which is under the control of R1 & R2 All are R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 25 Ch. Ananda Rao, S/o. Polisetty, E-455623, Working at Maddilapalem APSRTC Depot, Which is under the control of R1 & R2 All are R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. 26 A. Krishnam Raju, S/o. Jankirama Raju E-455801, Working at Maddilapalem APSRTC Depot, Which is under the control of R1 & R2 All are R/o. Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The APSRTC, Rep. byits Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The APSRTC, Rep. byits Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam, Region, at Visakhapatnam. 3 The APSRTC, Rep. byits Depot Manager, Maddilapalem Depot, Visakhapatnam 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not counting the seniority of the Petitioners from the date of their regularization, having counted for granting 12 years stagnation increment, as high handed and arbitrary action, without jurisdiction, contrary to APSRTC Regulations, violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and as such liable to be set aside in the interest of justice, with a consequential direction to the Respondents herein to ﬁx the seniority of each Petitioner from the date of their regularization and to pay the consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) WRIT PETITION NO : 15493 of 2008 Between: S.A.Rao and others. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The APSRTC, rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The APSRTC rep. by its Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam, Region, at Visakhapatnam. 3 The APSRTC rep. by its Depot Manager, Simhachalam Depot, Visakhapatnam 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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not counting the seniority of the petitioner from the date of their regularization, having counted for granting 12 years stagnation increment, as high handed and arbitrary action, without jurisdiction, contrary to APSRTC Regulation, violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of India and as such liable to be set aside the interest of justice, with a consequential direction to the respondents herein to ﬁx the seniority of each petitioner from the date of their regularization and to pay the consequential benefits and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: MR.KAMBHAM MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: In these two writ petitions, similar question arises for consideration. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. The petitioners were employed as Drivers or Conductors, as the case may be, in Srikakulam, Vizianagaram, Visakhapatnam Rural Divisions in the years 1989, 1990 and 1991. Later on, they became the employees of Visakhapatnam Urban Division. Their services, however, were reckoned from the year 1993. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners made representations in the year 1996. Through his letter, dated 20.04.2002, the Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam, the second respondent herein, informed the petitioners that though they have been appointed in diﬀerent Divisions, they were absorbed in Visakhapatnam Urban Division, on their request, on condition that they have to forego their seniority in the other Division. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the said communication. They contend that the regularization of their services in the years 1989, 1990 and 1991 was at a time when they were functioning in Visakhapatnam Urban Division and in that view of the matter, there is no basis for reckoning seniority with reference to a subsequent date. The respondents ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit opposing the claim of the petitioners. It is stated that it was only on the option exercised by the petitioners that they were absorbed in Visakhapatnam Urban Division, subject to the condition of their taking the last rank in that Division. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed as Conductors or Drivers in Srikakulam, Vizianagaram and Visakhapatnam Rural Divisions. On account of the need in Visakhapatnam Urban Division, their services were required. It appears that the services of the petitioners were regularized at a time when they were working in Visakhapatnam Urban Division. However, the regularization was not against the vacancies, in that Division. Naturally, the regularization would be of an initial appointment. The impugned order as well as the counter-aﬃdavit of the respondents clearly disclose that the petitioners have exercised their option, to be permanently absorbed in Visakhapatnam Urban Division. The option was accepted, subject to their foregoing their earlier seniority. The consequential orders to that eﬀect were also passed and they took seniority from the date of exercising of such option. This took place in the year 1993. The representations, no doubt, were made from time to time in the year 1996, but the impugned order was passed in the year 2002. The writ petition was ﬁled in the year 2006. Basically, there is laxity on the part of the petitioners in working out their remedies. The fact, however, remains that they were assigned the dates on the basis of the option exercised by them. The petitioners cannot seek permanent transfer to Visakhapatnam Urban Division and at the same time, have the beneﬁt of their seniority in the other Divisions. This Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:20.08.2008 kdl