IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 3967 of 2003 Between: P. Narayanappa S/o P. Kondaiah A. Kondapuram Village, Arakatavemula Post, Putuluru Mandal, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Rep. by The Executive Engineer Civil Engineering Department Cuddapah. 2 Deputy Executive Engineer Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Civil Engineering Department, Anantapur. 3 Mr. H. Daivayathnam The Deputy Executive Engineer, A.P.S.R.T.C., Anantapur. .....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 an order direction or writ prarticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or nay other appropriate writ declaring the proceedings No. St./785 (5).02-EE'C dated 23-1-2003 is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory; and consequently set asid the same with further direction to regularise the service of the petitioner from the date initial appointment in the post of Man Mazdoor/Field Man with all consequential benefits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY The Court made the following : ORDER : The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings No.St./785(5)/02-EE’C, dated 23.01.2003 is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently set aside the same with further direction to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment in the post of Man Mazdoor with all consequential benefits. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as a Man Mazdoor in the year 1978 and when he had put in continuous service of 13 months as Man Mazdoor, his services were terminated with effect from 31.12.1979 and hence, he raised a dispute i.e., I.D. No.70 of 1993 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur and the Labour Court while allowing the said Industrial Dispute passed an order dated 11.10.1996 directing the respondents to reinstate him into service with continuity of service and for payment of compensation of Rs.2,000/- in lieu of back wages. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 07.07.1999 and posted to Anantapur Division. However, as the petitioner’s case was not considered for regularization, he approached this Court and filed W.P. No.21540 of 2002. This Court vide order dated 09.11.2002 directed the respondent corporation to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. However, his case was considered and rejected by an order dated 23.01.2003. The same is under challenge. 3. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one Daivayathnam, who is similarly placed and worked only for a period of 10 months as Man Mazdoor, was reinstated by virtue of the order passed by the Labour Court and thereafter his services were regularized with effect from 29.04.1987. Similarly, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, another person by name Krishtappa, who is much junior to the petitioner also was considered and his services were also regularized with effect from 25.07.1996. But, when it came to the case of the petitioner, the respondents passed the said order dated 23.01.2003 stating that the petitioner’s case cannot be considered. A detailed counter affidavit is filed stating that by the time, the petitioner’s case came up for consideration, there was ban and in that view of the matter the petitioner’s case could not be considered. 4. When once the said Daivayathnam and Krishtappa, who are admittedly juniors to the petitioner in all aspects, are considered for regularization, this Court is of the view that there is no rationale in not considering the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services. 5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to consider his case for regularization with affect from the date of award i.e., 11.10.1996 passed in I.D. No.70 of 1993. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Dated June 19, 2009 KSH