Disposed

Dasari Malakondaiah, Prakasam District v. Chairman &M.D.,Apsrtc.,Hyderabad & 2 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC26 Dec 2024WP/34138/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the APSRTC to consider the petitioner, a contract driver acquitted of criminal charges since 2006, for regularization. The Court ordered the corporation to pass orders within 6 weeks treating this judgment as an application.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for regularization within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

Dasari Malakondaiah, Prakasam… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶6

WRIT PETITIONNO: 34138 OF 2011

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dasari Malakondaiah, S/o.China Malakondaiah, aged 33 years, R/o. Door No.202, 13th ward, Ambedkarnagar Chimakurthy village & Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation represented by its Chairman & Managing Director, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.

¶11

The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road, Transport Corporation, Ongole Region, Ongole, Town Prakasam District.

¶12

The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Ongole Depot, Ongole town Prakasam District

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in^the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not appointing petitioner as regular driver by giving continuity of service for the period during which petitioner worked as contract driver, though similarly situated persons were appointed by proceedings No.,E1/255(3)/201^0-

¶15

RM(0) dated 15.3.2010 issued by 2nd respondent as illegal, irregular, irrational ,discriminatory and violative of Articles, 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to appoint petitioner as regular driver in time scale pay with all attendant benefits and continuity of service. I.A. NO: 1 OF 2011tWPMP. NO: 42486 OF 20111 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider petitioner case for appointment as regular driver in the time scale pay on par with other similarly situated contract drivers with continuity the service for the period during which petitioner worked as contract driver pending disposal of the main writ petition.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA

¶17

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VENKATESWARLU S (SC^FOR APSRTC )

¶18

The Court made the following order:

¶19

APHC010131512011

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶21

[3457]

¶22

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶23

PRESENT

¶24

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO: 34138 OF 2011

Between:

Dasari Malakondaiah

...Petitioner

AND

A.P.S.R.T.C., rep. by its Chairman And Managing Director, Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh and two others. ...Respondents

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana

¶32

Counsel for respondents: 1. Ms. K.Sarala Mahender Reddy

¶33

Ms. K.Sarala Reddy

¶34

Ld. Standing Counsel for APSRTC

¶35

The Court made the following order:

¶36

The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the^{respondentsinnot}

¶37

considering him for appointment on a regular basis^asadriverin the respondents-corporation.

¶38

The learned counsel submits that the petitioner was working as a contract driver since 2006. On 03.02.2009, the petitioner, after

-2-

W.P. No.34138of 2011

finishing his duty, while going to home he was beaten up by somebody and hence, he underwent treatment till 11.02.2009^and later, on the advice of doctors, he took bed rest for 7 days and he could not attend duty from 12.02.2009. During his absence,^the respondents-corporation initiated disciplinary proceedings and terminated the service of the petitioner. Challenging^theorderof termination, the petitioner filed W.P. No.560 of 2010^beforethis Court. The said writ petition was allowed. In pursuance^ofthe orders of this Court in W.P. No.560 of 2010, the petitioner^was reinstated into service. The learned counsel further submits that the respondents-corporation has regularized the services^of267 drivers who were appointed along with the petitioner^oncontract basis. However, the case of the petitioner was not^{consideredfor} regularization and on enquiry, the third respondent orally stated that the petitioner was involved in Cr.No.10 of 2009^onthefileof Chimakurthy police station, as such the case of the petitioner for regularization was not considered.

¶43

The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal case, vide judgment dated 22.09.2010, in S.C. No.116 of 2010. On account of the pendency of the said case, the petitioner was not considered for

¶44

-3-

¶45

W.P. No.34138 of 2011

¶46

V-

¶47

regularization. It is also submitted that the petitioner^{isstillworking} on contract basis with the respondent corporation.

¶48

The respondents filed their counter stating that^{thepetitioner} was involved in a crime and that disciplinary proceedings^{wereinitiated} against the petitioner on more than one occasion.

¶49

The counter is silent as to the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case. In the judgment, the learned Assistant^Sessions Judge has given a clean acquittal to the petitioner,^asno other prosecution witnesses have stated anything against^{thepetitioner.} If the pendency of the criminal case was the only hurdle^forthe respondents-corporation in considering the petitioner for regularization of his services, acquittal of the criminal^caseought to have been taken into consideration soon after they were received information. The respondents regularized 267^driversvide proceedings dated 15.03.2010 in various depots of the State. These proceedings were passed in the year 2010. The^present requirement of the respondents is not known insofar as the passing of regularization orders to the petitioner^{isconcerned.The} respondents could not dispute that the petitioner has been continuously working from the year 2006 as a driver^with the respondents-corporation on contract basis.

¶50

-4W.P. No.34138of2011

¶51

In these circumstances, the respondents are hereby^directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization, keeping in view of his long standing services from the year 2006. In this regard, the order passed by this Court would be treated as the

¶52

application of the petitioner, and the respondents-corporation shall pass necessary orders within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

¶53

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off. No costs.

¶54

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. Sd/- B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECl1olr(5FFICER

¶55

To,

¶56

The Chairman & Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh^StateRoad Transport Corporation, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh.

¶57

The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road, Transport Corporation, Ongole Region, Ongole, Town Prakasam District.

¶58

The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road, Transport Corporation, Ongole Depot, Ongole town Prakasam District.

¶59

One CC to Sri. Nimmagadda Satyanarayana Advocate [OPUC]

¶60

One CC to M/s. K. Sarala Reddy(SC for APSRTC) [OPUC]

¶61

One CC to Sri. Venkateswarlu S (SC for APSRTC) [OPUC]

¶62

Three CD Copies

CSC

HIGH COURT

DATED:27/12/2024

ORDER

WP.No.34138 of 2011

X 0 S JAN 20?5 .
Current Section ^

¶69

DISPOSING OF THE WP

¶70

WITHOUT COSTS

Dasari Malakondaiah, Prakasam District v. Chairman &M.D.,Apsrtc.,Hyderabad & 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasari Malakondaiah, Prakasam District v. Chairman &M.D.,Apsrtc.,Hyderabad & 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Y.Chinna Rao, Vs The Project Officer, I.T.D.A

Smt. G. Anupama, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Medical & Health Department

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, W.G. District & Another Vs Presiding Officer, Hon'Ble Labour Court, Guntur Dist & Anr.

K. Balakrishna Vs The Chairman & Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State

U.Bharathi,Anantapur,& 24 Vs Apcpdcl,Chairman,Md,&Anot

G.Ramesh Reddy, Vs M.Vijay Kumar