IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 18732 of 2000 BETWEEN: 1 Ch Y.V. Rao S/o. China Narasaiah, R/o. Viswanadhapuram Podili, Prakasam District. 2 G. V. Narayana S/o. Venkateswarlu, R/o. Podili Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Managing Director, R.T.C., X Roads, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager A.P.S.R.T.C., Prakasam Region Ongole, Prakasam District. 3 The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C. Podili Depot, Podili, Prakasam District. 4 The Depot Manager A.P.S.R.T.C. Kandukuru, Prakasam 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 a Writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent in not regularising our services as drivers grade II and in disengaging us from the services of casual drivers with eﬀect from 01.09.2000, as violative of Article 14, of Constitution of India, arbitrary, illegal, unjust and unfair, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners :MR.M.RAVINDRANATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER : 1. When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that he has got latest instructions to the eﬀect that the services of both the petitioners were regularized. It is stated that so far as 1st petitioner is concerned, his services were regularized with eﬀect from 01.06.2002, and that of the 2nd petitioner were regularized from 01.08.2002, and orders to that eﬀect were already issued. 2. In that view of the matter, no cause survives in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 3. However, if the petitioners are aggrieved of the dates of their regularization, it is open for them to pursue the remedies available in law. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 18th November 2008 ajr