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 RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 11228 of 1999 Between: K.Mose, S/oAseervadam, R/o Ambajipet, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep By its Regional Manager, East Godavari Region Rajamundry. 2 The Personal Officer, A.P.S.R.T.C., O/o Regional Manager, East Godavari Region At Rajamundry. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Razole Depot, Razole, East Godavari District. 4 The Deputy Transport Commissioner, East Godavari District At Kakinada. .....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 to issue order or direction more particularly one in the Nature of Writ of Mandamus decalring the action of Respondents herein in not alloting duties to the petitioner though he submitted a genuine certificate of the petitioner driving licence issued by the 4th respondent herein vide letter R.NO.1928/05/99 DT. 23/2/99 and Memo NO. 1928/05/99 DT. 18/1/99 as unjust, arbitary and against to the Art 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India consquently direct the 2nd and 3rd Respondent herein to allot duties to the petitioner forthwith and to pay the salary from 20.11.98 to till reinstatement by regularising the services in the intrest of justice and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following Order: The action of the respondents in placing the petitioner on put off duty is questioned in this writ petition as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was appointed as a driver subject to verification of the genuineness of his driving licence. On being informed by the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Kakinada, that the petitioner did not possess driving licence for heavy passenger vehicles, he was kept on put off duty. As is evident from the counter affidavit, filed by the fourth respondent i.e. the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Kakinada, they had informed the respondent-Corporation, vide letter dated 09-11- 1998, regarding the genuineness of the driving licence of several drivers, including that of the petitioner, based on the particulars available with their office. Subsequently, the petitioner had approached their office and had informed that he had obtained a driving licence for heavy passenger vehicles from the Government Driving School, Kakinada and had produced the same for verification. On verification of the driving licence, and records of the Government Driving School, Kakinada, a memo dated 18-01-1999 was issued duly marking a copy to the respondent- Corporation that the driving licence No.3010 /82 and the endorsement i.e. heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger vehicle and badge, possessed by the petitioner, along with renewals, were genuine. Sri S.M.Subhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that pursuant to the intimation sent by the Deputy Transport Commissioner at Kakinada, the respondent-Corporation reinstated the petitioner in the month of January, 2000 and that the grievance of the petitioner is with regards his being kept under ‘put off’ duty from 27-11-1998 till January, 2000 i.e. for a period in excess of a year and to treat the said period as if he continued to be on duty. The action of the respondent-Corporation in placing the petitioner on put off duty, in view of the intimation received from the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Kakinada, that the endorsement on the driving licence of the petitioner for heavy passenger vehicle was not genuine, cannot be faulted, for it is only if the selected candidate possesses a valid driving licence for heavy passenger vehicles, can he be appointed as a driver in the respondent-Corporation. The fact, however, remains that the petitioner was also not at fault and it was only on account of an error on the part of the Deputy Transport Commissioner, and their failure to verify with the Government Driving School at Kakinada, that the petitioner was kept on put off duty. Since the petitioner has since been reinstated into service, the question which remains to be examined is his entitlement to salary for the period when he was kept on put off duty i.e. from 09-11-1998 till he was reinstated into duty in January, 2000. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances, I consider it appropriate to direct the respondent-Corporation to examine the petitioner’s claim, both for being paid salary for the period he was kept on put off duty, and for his services to be treated as continuous, bearing in mind that the petitioner was not at fault and that the mistake had occurred on account of an erroneous intimation by the Deputy Transport Commissioner’s Office at Kakinada, and to pass orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ______________ 29-02-2008 usd