In a dismissed writ petition, the High Court held that the respondents did not fail to implement the earlier order of this Court requiring regularization of the petitioner's services, as no evidence showed any junior was regularized earlier than the date set by the impugned order.
No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
W.P.No.22859 of 2006
ORAL ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in regularizing the services of the petitioner with effect from 1.8.2000 vide Order of the second respondent in proceedings No.LC/372(21)/2000-RM-KMM dated 22.6.2005, instead of regularizing his services with effect from 13.2.1998, as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from 13.2.1998.
It appears, petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the year 1975 at Kothagudem Depot and subsequently his services were regularized in the year 1977. While that being so, he was issued with charge sheet on 16.1.1978 alleging cash and ticket irregularities. After conducting a detailed enquiry into the charges, petitioner was removed from service. Aggrieved thereby, he raised a dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court in I.D.No.109 of 1986 and the Labour Court vide its award dated 31.10.1986 confirmed the terminated order passed by the Respondent Corporation. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed W.P.No.16188 of 1992 and the same was also dismissed. Questioning the same, petitioner W.A.No.1172 of 1994 and the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ appeal by order dated 28.11.1996 with the following directions:
“Accordingly the appeal is disposed of confirming the findings of the authorities on the charges leveled against the appellant, but modifying the punishment from one of removal from service to one of reinstatement without back wages and without continuity of service and that the appellant must be treated as a fresh recruitee with immediate effect, positively by the end of December 1996”.
In view of the same, petitioner was appointed as fresh
Conductor by order dated 13.2.1997. Thereafter, he filed W.P.No.15539 of 2003 seeking regularization of his services in the cadre of Gr.II Conductor under Regulation 17 of RTC Employees (Recruitment and Regularisation) Rules and in conformity with the circular dated 10.4.1996. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 6.10.2004 with the following directions:
“As the respondents have specifically not denied the averments made by the petitioner in paragraph 8 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that some other juniors to the petitioner have been regularized, I am of the view that the petitioner is also entitled for regularization of his services, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioner, if any of his juniors were regularized subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner, by excluding one year period from the date of fresh appointment and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order”.
Thereafter, petitioner filed Contempt Case No.305 of 2005 for implementation of the above order. Based on the proceedings of the respondents dated 22.6.2005 regularising the services of the petitioner with effect from 1.8.2000, the said contempt case was closed.
Now the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the proceedings dated 22.6.2005 issued by respondents stating that his services could have been regularized with effect from 13.2.1998 and not with effect from 1.8.2000.
The learned counsel for petitioner states that in view of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.15539 of 2003 dated 6.10.2004, petitioner is automatically entitled for regularization one year after 13.2.1997.
A perusal of the order passed in W.P.No.15539 of 2003 dated 6.10.2004 would indicate that petitioner is entitled for regularization of his services, if any of his juniors were regularized subsequent to his
fresh appointment i.e. 13.2.1997, by excluding one year period from the date of fresh appointment. The learned counsel for petitioner neither shown in the affidavit nor demonstrated before the Court that any juniors of the petitioner appointed after his fresh appointment on 13.2.1997, their services were regularized prior to 1.8.2000. Once this is the position, it cannot be said that the respondents have not implemented the orders of this Court in W.P.No.15539 of 2003 dated 6.10.2004 properly. The respondents have furnished reasons for regularizing the services of the petitioner with effect from 1.8.2000. I am of the opinion that the respondents have not committed any error in passing the impugned order dated 22.6.2005. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
C.V.RAMULU, J
Date: 27.4.2010 DA
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
W.P.No.22859 of 2006
27.4.2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU
W.P.No.22859 of 2006
Date: 27th April, 2010
Between: U.Subba Rao
.. Petitioner
And
The Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others.
.. Respondents
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Respondents failed to properly implement the order directing regularization of the petitioner's services by backdating it to 13.2.1998.
Whether the regularization of the petitioner's services with effect from 1.8.2000 constitutes an arbitrary and illegal exercise of power.
U.Subba Rao
The Managing Director, APSRTC
C.V.RAMULU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
