Disposed

P. Vinod Babu, v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Ltd.

Telangana HC9 Oct 2015WP/33153/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Apex Court disposed of a writ petition by directing the APSRTC to consider the petitioner's representation regarding regularization of service from 01-8-2001 and payment of attendant benefits within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioner's representation on regularization and pay of arrears within 8 weeks.

P. Vinod Babu, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No.33153 of 2015

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard Sri N.M. Krishnaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri A.Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-APSRTC.

¶5

2. The petitioner was appointed as Casual Driver on 19.04.1999 by the duly constituted selection committee. Thereafter, he was appointed as Driver Grade-II in the respondent-organization as per the proceedings dated 08-5-2000 and 20-02-2000. The services of some of the Casual Drivers, who were appointed as Casual Drivers and who have completed 240 days service as Drivers Grade-II along with the petitioner, were regularized through proceedings dated 29-82002 issued by the 1st respondent. It is submitted by the petitioner that the services of some of the juniors to the petitioner who joined as Casual Drivers were also regularized in the year 2002 with effect from 01-8-2001, but unfortunately the services of the petitioner was regularized with effect from 06-10-2007.

¶6

3. Therefore, the petitioner along with others submitted a representation dated 01-01-2008 to the respondents requesting them to consider their date of regularization of service as Casual Drivers with effect from 01-8-2001 instead of 06-10-2007 and to pay the difference of pay and attendant benefits calculating the service from 01-8-2001 instead of 06-10-2007 but no action was taken. He submitted another representation dated 26-3-2015 to respondents 1 and 2 reiterating the same request. The aforesaid representation was not considered and no orders have been passed on the said representation. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present writ petition to direct the respondents to consider the representation submitted by

¶7

him and pass appropriate orders thereon.

¶8

4. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission, directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation dated 26-3-2015 submitted by the petitioner regarding his date of regularization and payment of arrears and granting other attendant benefits and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of 8 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶9

________________ R.KANTHA RAO, J

¶10

Date: 09.10.2015 BSS

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶12

¶13

Writ Petition No.33153 of 2015

¶14

Date: 09.10.2015

¶15

BSS

P. Vinod Babu, v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Vinod Babu, v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Allam Leelavathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N.Shanmugam, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

B. Suvarnamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary

Dasari Anantha Laxmi, Vs Thatavarthi Kanaka Durgasatyavathi

Muzaffar Ahmed, Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Manappa Badiger, Vs The Union of India