IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 5869 and 5906of 2006 W.P.No.5869 of 2006 Between: 1 Ch.Chandra Shekar, S/o.Yadagiri, O/o.The Dy.Chief Accounts Officer, APSRTC, MGBS, Ranga Reddy Region, Hyderabad. 2 S.Yadagiri, S/o.Naraiah, O/o.The Dy.Chief Accounts Officer (HZ), APSRTC, Uppal, RR.District, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, APSRTC, Bus Bhavan Complex, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Director, APSRTC, H & K Zone, MGBS, Gowliguda, Hyderabad. 3 The Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad Zone, MGBS, Gowliguda, Hyderabad. 4 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad City Region, JBS, Picket, Secunderabad. .....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 a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in asking the petitioners to give options for effecting transfers to their regions of APSRTC, HZ as bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, unreasonable and contrary to the options earlier given by the petitioners by setting aside letter No.E2/813(16)/06-HZ dt.01-03-2006 of R3 herein and consequently direct the respondents to treat the petitioners as the employees of APSRTC, Hyderabad City Region and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 5906 of 2006 Between: 1 R.K. Dhanraj S/o T.R.K. Swamy O/o The Dy., Chief Accounts Officer, APSRTC Hyderabad Zone, Uppal Hyderabad 2 K.R. Mohan Rao S/o K. Moses O/o The Dy. Chief Accounts Office, APSRTC., Ranga Reddy Region, MGBS, Gowliguda, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, APSRTC., Bus Bhavan Complex, Musheerabad, Hyderabad 2 The Executive Director, APSRTC, H& K Zone, MGBS, Gowliguda, Hyderabad 3 The Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad Zone, MGBS Gowliguda, Hyderabad 4 The Regional Manager, APSRTC. Hyderabad City Regional Manager, APSRTC,. Hyderabad, City Region JBS, Picket Secunderabad .....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 a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in asking the petitioners to give options for effecting transfers to other regions of APSRTC, HZ as bad, arbitrary illegal, unjust, unreasonable and contrary to the options earlier given by the petitioners by setting a side Letter NO. E2/813916)/06--BHZ dt 25-02- 2006 of R3 herein and consequently direct the respondents to treat the petitioners as the employees of APSRTC, Hyderabad City Region and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.VENKATESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: These two writ petitions arise under similar facts. As such, they are disposed of through a common order. Up to the year 1994, there used to be two separate Zones of A.P.S.R.T.C. catering to the needs of city and its suburbs, namely Golconda Zone and Bhagyanagar Zone. The petitioners were appointed as Junior Assistants in Golconda Zone. The two Zones were merged into ‘Hyderabad Zone’ in the year 1994. Four years thereafter, demerger took place and two separate Zones were created, namely ‘Hyderabad Zone’ and ‘Hyderabad City Zone’ (for short ‘the City Zone’). Employees of unified Hyderabad Zone were given option. It emerged that there did not exist any vacancies in the City Zone for absorbing the petitioners. Therefore, an order was passed to the effect that in case adequate vacancies did not arise within a period of one year, they would be absorbed in the other Zone. Within that stipulated time, adequate vacancies did not arise. The petitioners complain that on the one hand they were not absorbed in the City Zone and on the other, several Junior Assistants, who were inferior in seniority, were promoted. They seek appropriate directions in this regard. The respondents filed a counter affidavit narrating the various developments that took place on account of merger and demerger of two zones referred to above. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Though the petitioners opted for being absorbed in the City Zone in the year 1998, their option could not materialize, in view of the fact that adequate number of vacancies did not exist or arise. The respondents ought to have taken immediate steps or passed appropriate orders making the status of the petitioners clear. That, in turn, would have entailed the restoration of seniority as well as consequential promotion of the petitioners. There cannot be any justification for denying the promotion to the petitioners and their proper place in the seniority in Hyderabad Zone. Hence, the writ petitions are allowed and it is directed that the petitioners shall be treated as the employees of Hyderabad Zone and they shall be extended the benefit of promotion on the basis of their seniority in the category of Junior Assistants; and consequential benefits shall also be extended, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no orders as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 09.07.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}