THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 3084 of 2005 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner on par with his juniors, namely, M. Prabhakar, Conductor, E.No. 306416 and A. Swamy, Conductor, E.No. 318132 w.e.f. 20.3.1991 and regularizing his services from 1.8.1994 as arbitrary and illegal; consequently, to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 20.3.1991, with all consequential benefits. It appears, petitioner was appointed as Casual Conductor in the service of APSRTC and was attached to Mancherial Bus Depot, Adilabad District. While that was so, he was removed from service by an order dated 15.12.1989 for committing certain cash and ticket irregularities, after conducting a detailed enquiry into the matter. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner raised dispute in I.D. No. 266 of 1990 under Section 2-A (2) of the I.D. Act. The said dispute was answered in his favour by an Award dated 14.10.1991 whereunder the respondent- management directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service but without any other attendant benefits and without any backwages. The said Award passed by the Labour Court attained finality. In response to the Award dated 14.10.1991, petitioner was reinstated into service on 7.4.1992 and, further, his services were regularized w.e.f. 1.8.1997. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the services of his juniors, namely, M. Prabhakar and A. Swamy, who were also working along with him as Conductors, were regularized w.e.f. 20.3.1991; therefore, his services are also required to be regularized from that date. In the counter filed by the respondents, the fact that the services of the juniors to the petitioners, namely, M. Prabhakar and A. Swamy, were regularized w.e.f. 20.3.1991 is not disputed. However, it is stated that since the petitioner was out of employment at the time when the services of M. Prabhakar and A. Swamy were regularized, the services of the petitioner were not regularized. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the Labour Court granted the relief of continuity of service, petitioner is automatically entitled for regularization of his services w.e.f. 20.3.1991. This court is in agreement with the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 20.3.1991 instead of 1.8.1994. However, it is made clear that this benefit of regularization of service with retrospective effect shall be taken into consideration only for the purpose of seniority but not for any other benefits, because, though the cause of action arose in the year 1994, the writ petition is filed in the year 2005. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 12-4-2010. MVB.