THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No : 5590 of 2005 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted by a casual driver of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing his services from 01.03.1995 as illegal and consequently, he prays that his services may be regularized with effect from 01.03.1995. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was recruited to the services of the APSRTC as a casual driver on 15.11.1993 along with several others, however, the services of the other casual drivers were regularized with effect from 01.03.1995 and they were all thus made regular drivers of the Corporation, leaving out the writ petitioner. Hence, he has instituted this Writ Petition. Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC has placed before me a copy of the office order dated 01.11.2007 passed by the Depot Manager, Rajendranagar Depot of APSRTC regularizing the services of the writ petitioner with effect from 05.10.2007, subject to certain terms and conditions contained therein. No reasons are assigned as to why the services of the writ petitioner were regularized only with effect from 05.10.2007 but not from 01.03.1995, the date on which the services of others, such as Sri R. Viswanatha Raju and Sri A. Lalaiah were regularized, particularly when it is alleged by the writ petitioner that the aforementioned two individuals were placed down below in the provisional seniority list of casual drivers prepared by the Corporation. Now, the learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that the writ petitioner while working as a casual driver, was involved in a fatal accident on 21.03.1994 and consequently, the Corporation has suffered a great deal. Hence he was put off duty initially from 22.03.1994 and after an enquiry was conducted in the matter, he was also removed from service on 21.08.1995. That order of removal was subject matter of challenge before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in I.D.No. 93 of 1998. Though he has approached the Labour Court nearly three years after his removal from service, but nonetheless, the Labour Court had passed an Award on 18.03.2002, setting aside the said removal order and ordered for his reinstatement into service with all consequential benefits, such as continuity of service, full back wages and other attendant benefits. The Corporation has challenged the correctness and validity of the said Award by instituting Writ Petition No. 20798 of 2002, but the said Writ Petition has been dismissed as withdrawn on 17.11.2004. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition preferred by the Corporation, the Award dated 18.03.2002 rendered in I.D.No. 93 of 1998 has become final. Consequently, the Corporation has paid the back wages right from 22.03.1994, the date on which the petitioner has been put off duty. It is, therefore, clear that the Corporation has treated the writ petitioner to be in continuous employment from 22.03.1994 onwards. The essential grievance of the writ petitioner in not having his services regularized has, to a certain extent, been redressed, inasmuch as through the office order dated 01.11.2007 of the Depot Manager, Rajendranagar Depot, the services of the writ petitioner were regularized with effect from 05.10.2007. Therefore, he is not being treated as a causal driver henceforth by the Corporation, but there are no reasons explained as to why his services have been regularized only with effect from 05.10.2007, but not from an earlier date. It is, therefore, imperative for the respondents to apply their mind to all the relevant facts and circumstances and take an appropriate decision as to how and why the services of the writ petitioner cannot be regularized with effect from any earlier date than 05.10.2007. If a casual driver has caused a fatal accident and as a result, the Corporation had suffered financially, since it is required to pay compensation to the victims, it is only appropriate that the relevant factors should be taken into account and consideration and a reasoned order should have been passed. I find from the office order dated 01.11.2007 that no such exercise has been carried out. Therefore, I direct the respondents to re-consider the entire matter as to why the services of the writ petitioner could not be regularized with effect from a date earlier than 05.10.2007, taking all relevant facts and circumstances into account and consideration. An order in this regard be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the writ petitioner. The Writ Petition stands allowed to the extent indicated supra. No costs. ---------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J 11th November 2010 ksld ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}