Disposed

N. Srinivas, v. A.P.S.R.T.C

Telangana HC23 Sept 2023WP/39144/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a contract driver, sought writ of mandamus to regularize his service with consequential benefits after 240 days from initial appointment. Court noted prior termination and re-engagement but disposed of petition granting liberty to approach the corporation for regularization based on re-engagement date.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; petitioner granted liberty to make representation to Respondent Corporation for regularization from re-engagement date.

N. Srinivas, Vs A.P.S.R.T.C — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ I

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

SATURDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTH]K

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 39144 OF 2013

¶8

Between:

¶9

N. Srinivas, S/o Gattaiah, aged 34 years, C NO 29722, Sircilla depot, Contract Driver, r/o Sircilla, Karlmnagar dist.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

A.P.S.R.T.C, Rep by its VC & MD, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Karimnagar region, Karimnagar, Karimnagar dist.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or directions more in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents management to regularize the petitioner service on completion of 240 days from the date of initial appointment with all consequential benefits including fixation of seniority, re-fixation of pay and payment of arrears

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P. GOVINDA RAJULU

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: SRt KRISHNA KARTHIK REP

¶17

SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS SC FOR TSRTC

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

¶20

THE HO,IIOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA ]il\RlTHIK

¶21

IIIRIT PETITION No.39144 OIr 20I3

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This Writ I'etition is filed by the petition er-enrployee seeking a direction to the respondents to regularize his r;ervice:i on completion of 240 days Irom the date of initial appoirrrrne rt rvith all consequential be nef,rts, including fixation of seniorit.r, r'r:-fixation of pay and paymen - of arrears

¶24

The case of the petitioner is that he was initiall,y approinted as a Contract Driver in the respondcnt-Corporation during the year 2008. While he was rvorking at Karimnaga,r Dep()t, his scrvices were terminated on 1(r.06.2009 uide Order No.Pl llQ6\t1q-<RMR II, for his unauthorized absenteeism to duties 1br tht p,:riod from 10.04.2009 to 1€ .06.20O9. Thereafter, on filirg of :evie,r. before the 2nd respondent, the safire was considere<l arcl a llowed uide proceedings No.FAl 19(45) I 2OO)-RM/KRMR, dated 1',.01.2009, and he was re-engag( d as a fresh Contract Driver "v.<:.f., '.29.10.2009, on executing a fresh agreement. The respondentr; hav: :egr,rlarized the services of all cc ntract employees u,ho were rrppoi t1 ed in the year 2OO9 in Karimna;ar Region ald they have ignorerl Lis case. It is the further case of the petitioner that, after complel.ion ,rf 240 days from the date of his initial appointment, the r espo t<. entr; have to

¶25

¶26

{,1 wp 39144_2()13

¶27

regolaLr"ize his services w.e.f., the date of his initial^appointment. However, without considering his case, the respondents^have regularized the services of the contract Drivers^{and Conductors, who} were appointed in the year 2}ll-12. Hence, the^{present writ} petition.

¶28

The respondents hled a counter affidavit wherein it is^stated that as per the terms and conditions of the Contract^Guidelinesof the respondent-Corporation, there is no provision to^{regularize the} services of Contract Drivers and Conductors,^rvho have^completed 240 days of service. It is further stated that the^{petitioner was} terminated from service due to his unauthorized^{absenceto his} duties w.e.f., 16.06.2009, and subseo;rently,^{he was re-engagedas a} fresh Contract Driver w.e.f., 29.10.2009. Hence,^{the question of} regularization of his services on par with his^{colleagues in the year} 2Ol1-12, does not arise. It is further^stated that^{as per his eligibility} from the date of his re-engagement,^i.e., oo^{29.1O.2OO9,his services} were regularized w.e.f., 01.09.2013, and he^{was allotted Staff} N o.8.323237 uide O. O.^No. E7 / 255^(L) I^{20 I 4- SRL, dated 27.O l.2O I 4.}

¶29

Heard Sri P. Govinda Rajulu,^{learnedcounsel appearing for the} petitioner, and Sri Krishna Karthik,^{Iearnedcounsel, representing}

PK,J wp 39144_2013

Sri Gaddam S rinivas, learned Stancling Cour rs :l lbr TSRTC, appearing for th,-' respondents

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the pet tione r submitted that the issue in thc present writ petition IS setrar-el'r covt:red by the Order of this Corrrt in W.P.No.20787 of 2013, ,latei^(.7 .01>.2022, and requested this Crtrrt to pass similar order in tliis wlil petition.

¶35

The same is not disputed by the learned Siri Lnd ing Counsel appearing for tht: respondents

¶36

In r.iew of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a liberty to the pet itioner to mal<e a representat on t( ) t h e respondentCorporation for regularization of his services frorn the date of availability of vacancy after compietion of 240 days of service from the date of his re -engagement rnto service. Upon recr ipt ,tf any such representation fi om the petitioner, the responden:s sltall consider the same and rass appropriate orders in ,rccordzrnce with law, within a period ol eight (08) weeks thereof.

¶37

Miscellanec us applications, if any, pendir rg in this writ petition, shall ste.nd closed. No costs.

¶38

¶39

To,

¶40

Sll/- K.S RI:EF'AMA MURTHY ASSIS TAT\II- REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// rjlg S,ECTION OFFICER

¶41

1 The Vice Chairmirn and Managing Director,T.S. R.T.C,^l\lusheera tad^i-lyderabad

¶42

2 The Regional Ma rager, TSRTC, Karimnagar region, Kar mnagtrr,^{Kar nrnagar} District.

¶43

One CC to SRl. I). GOVINDA RAJULU,^Advocate [OPU]l

¶44

4 One CC to SRl.^{;ADDAI,'I SRINIVAS,^{SC FORTSRTC} [OPU(:] 5 Two CD Copies

¶45

b BM G.IP

HIGH COURT

DATED:23109,t2023

ORDER

.a , _..
.-: ,. .+r' .
.. :)' ..-
.<br>a<br>I
s.
il ,:: i-<br>i ()r tl
F..
.t-- i; ;!

¶50

WP.No.39144 of 2013

¶51

DISPOSING C F THE WRIT PETITIONI WITHOUT COSTS

¶52

@t"8'4
*
\ 6

N. Srinivas, v. A.P.S.R.T.C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Srinivas, v. A.P.S.R.T.C

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. Venkateswara Rao, Secunderabad Vs Gm, Scr, Secunderabad and 2 Others

P. Ramulu Vs A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Limited

Karnam Sravan Kumar Goud, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

C.S Narnyana, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport

Budha Raju Bharat Anand, Vs The Telangana State Power Generation

Sri. Satwik mandal,, Vs The Director of School Education of A.P.