Dismissed

B.Mangaraju and 9 Others v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transprot Corporation

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Dec 2023WP/12034/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenged the inaction of APSRTC in regularizing petitioners' services. The petitioners claimed re-engagement in 1982 for services starting from 1979 seeking backdated regularization. The Court dismissed the petition due to lack of material proving continuous service without breaks and absence of a specific engagement date in 1979.

What the court decided

AI extract

B.Mangaraju and 9 Others Vs Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH NUNEPALLY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 12034 OF 2004

¶7

Between:

¶8

B.Mangaraju, S/o B.Veerabadra Rao Chintal Street, Gokavaram -533 286, East Godavari District

¶9

A.S.P.Rao, S/o Veera Venkata Satyanarayana H.No.36-13-2^KotammaReddi Vari street,. Rajahmundry E.G.District

¶10

M.Raja Rao, S/o M.Subba Rao Pasidicheruvu, Amalapuram,^E.G.District

¶11

K.Nuka Raju, S/o Veeraju Mypalavari Street, Kovvur,^W.G.District

¶12

P.Papa Vineswara Subrahmanyam Devara, S/o Satyam (Satyanarayana ) Gokavaram, Drivers Colony, H.S.No.1-3-71, E.G.District

¶13

S.Satyananayana, S/o Aravaraju Burugupudi Kolukond Mandal, E.G.District

¶14

S.S.Abbas, S/o Zbrahim Aga Street, Draksharama , R.C.Puram Mandapalli

¶15

P.Simhachalam, S/o P.Venkata Rao Manspalli Post,^Gannavaram

¶16

D.Veerabhadra Rao, S/o Mallikarjuna Lingam Veeravaram , Kadiram Mandalam, Rajahmundry.

¶17

D.David Ephraiah, S/o Ruben C/o D.Yesudas (Teacher) Radalapeta, Pithapuram, East Godavari District

¶18

...PETITIONER(S)

¶19

AND

¶20

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transprot Corporation , Mushirabad, Hyderabad, rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director

¶21

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep.by its Regional Manager, East Godavari District Region, Kakinada, East^Godavari.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ particularly^one in the nature of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ the petitioners^{servicesfromthedateof} initial appointment is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners^{fromthedateoftheir} initial appointment with all consequential benefits from the date of regulations including difference of salary.

¶24

LA. NO: 1 OF 2004fWPMP. NO: 15295 OF 2004)

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to dispose of the representation^{dt.19/04/2004.}

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): M/S. K UDAYA SRI

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2 : SRI VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC)

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶30

WRIT PETITION No. 12034 OF 2004

¶31

ORDER;

¶32

The petitioners are aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not regularizing their services from^{thedateoftheir} initial appointment and consequently seeking a direction to regularize their services from the date of their initial appointment with all consequential benefits.

¶33

The brief averments made in the writ petition are^thatin the year 1979, the respondents’ Corporation, by way^{oftheselection} made by the Selection Committee, appointed the petitioners as Conductors. However, after one month, the petitioners’^serviceswere disengaged and again, in the year 1982, they were engaged^andsince then they were working without any break. The petitioners’^services were regularized in the year 1984-85, but not regularized^fromthe date of initial appointment. The petitioners made a representation to the respondents’ Corporation to regularize their services^from the date of initial appointment. On such representation, the respondents’ Corporation called for the records of the petitioners from the respective depots. Thereafter no action taken by the

¶34

//2//

¶35

WP.No. 12034 OF 2004

¶36

respondents’ Corporation. Hence, the petitioners filed the present petition.

¶37

The respondents filed their counter submitted that the petitioners were selected in the year 1979 for operation of special services in connection with Godavari Pushkarams and that they were retrenched thereafter some of them were engaged temporarily on contract basis during peak seasons on daily wages. The respondents submits that only after completion of 240 working days the services of the conductors would be regularized as the petitioners fulfilled its condition they were be casualized. Thus the petitioners are not entitled for the regularization from the date of their initial appointment in the year 1979 and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the respondents’ Corporation.^Perused the material papers placed on record.

¶39

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that after following the due^selection process. the petitioners were engaged in the year 1979, soon after the

¶40

¶41

//3//

¶42

WP.No. 12034 OF 2004 petitioners were disengaged and again engaged in the year 1982 and since then they were continuing in service.

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of this Court in W.P. No.8070 of 1990 and the same was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.705 of 1995. In the said judgment, this Court, in similar circumstances, held that the petitioners therein have been regularly appointed from the date of respective dates of their joining in the posts for which they were selected and appointed. As such the petitioners^entitledfor regularization from the date of initial appointment and prayed to allow the writ petition.

¶44

The learned standing counsel for the respondents’ Corporation relies on the Judgment of this Court passed^inAndhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. P T Rao^, whereby this HonlDle Court dealt with similar occasion. However,^thisCourt had ordered that the respondents/workmen therein are^entitledfor regularization from the date of their initial appointment to said posts on completion of 240 working days. If there are number^ofclaimants seeking regularization, the same can be done only in a phased manner. Insofar as the claim of the workmen for arrears or back

¶45

1998 Law Suit (AP) 62

//4//

WP.No. 12034 OF 2004

wages is concerned, having regard to the facts and^{circumstancesof}

¶50

this case, the respondents/workmen are not entitled^tothesame.

¶51

Considering the facts and circumstances and upon perusing the material papers on record, it appears that the petitioners herein were regularized after completion of 240 days soon after they completed 240 days work as required The case of petitioners is that they have attained the age of superannuation by now, and their claim for considering their services from the year 1979 onwards. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners^havenot placed any material that they have contributed their^{servicessince} 1979 without any break and so also the writ petition^alsolacksa specific date on which the date of the petitioners were engaged in the year 1979. As such, the writ petition deserves to be^dismissed.

¶52

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without^costs.

¶53

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand^closed.

¶54

Sd/- G.HELA NAIDU ASSISTANTREGISTR/VR^-^

//TRUE COPY//

SEetlON'^FFICER

To,

One CC to M/S. K UDAYA SRI, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI. VINOD KUMAR TARLADA (SC FOR APSRTC)^[OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies. Madhu gl

HIGH COURT

DATED:20/12/2023

ORDER

WP.No.12034 of 2004

DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

¶64

S!^ 0^1

B.Mangaraju and 9 Others v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transprot Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

B.Mangaraju and 9 Others v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transprot Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Ramachandraiah, Vs the Asst. General Manager

A.v.Balaji, Vs The Regional Manager

P. Ramachandraiah, Chittoor District. Vs Government of A.P. Hyderabad. and 4 Others

P. Ramachandra Reddy Vs Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam

Kondaveeti Satyanarayana, E.G.District Vs Commissioner of Endowments and 2 Others

M. Narasimha Rajulu, Kurnool Dist. Vs State Bank of India, Sec'Bad and 2 Others