Dismissed

M. Shivanandam, S/o. Abbaiah, v. The Chairman / Managing Director, Apsrtc

Telangana HC3 Apr 2023WP/9344/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged their non-regularization as Grade-II drivers compared to junior employees. The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding no vested right to regularization from the initial appointment date and finding no scheme conferring such a right.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with costs against the petitioners, pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

M. Shivanandam, S/o. Abbaiah, Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁵⁷ ]

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 9344 OF 2013

¶8

Between:

¶9

M. Shivanandam, S/o. Abbaiah, E.No.650944, Presently working as Driver, APSRTC at Warangal I Depot, Warangal District.

¶10

M. Sammaiah, S/o- Veeraiah, E.No.650937. Presently working as^Driver,

¶11

APSRTC at Warangal ll Depot, Warangal District

¶12

D. Srinath, S/o. Buchaiah, E.No.650942, Presently^working as^Driver, APSRTC at Warangal I Depot, Warangal District.

¶13

P.R. Reddy, S/o. Mohan Reddy, E.No.650995, Presently^{working as Driver,} APSRTC at Warangal ll Depot, Warangal District.

¶14

E. Sudhakar, S/o. Venkataiah, E.No.65'1000, Presently working^{as Driver,} APSRTC at Warangal ll Depot, Warangal District.

¶15

K. Surender, S/o. Buchiramaiah, E.No.650954,^{Presentlyworking as Driver,} APSRTC at Warangal ll Depot, Warangal District.

¶16

A.S.C. Reddy, Sio. Malla Reddy, E.No.651028,^{Presently workingas Driver,} APSRTC at Warangal ll Depot, Warangal District.

¶17

N. Venu, S/o. Sitharamaiah, E.No.650979,^{Presentlyworkingas Driver,} APSRTC at Warangal ll Depot, Warangal District.

¶18

V. Ravi, S/o. Rajaiah, E.No.650947,^{Presenlly workingas DriverAPSRTCat} Warangal ll Depot, Warangal District.

¶19

10.Ch. Brahma Chary, S/o. Sattaiah, E.No.650949,^{Presently workingas Driver} APSRTC at Parkal Depot, Warangal^District.

¶20

11.8. Laxminarayana, S/o. Rajaiah, E.No.650950, Presently working^{as Driver} APSRTC at Pad<al Depot, Warangal District.

¶21

'12.D. Sambaiah, S/o. Kommraiah, E.No.650978, Presently worklng as Driver APSRTC at Warangal ll Depot, Warangal District.

¶22

13.S. Raju S/o. Komraiah, E.No.651036, Presently working as Driver, APSRTC Warangal ll Depot, Warangal District.

¶23

14.Ch. Kumara Swqrny, S/o. Venkataiah, E.No.650965, Presently working as Driver, APSRTC Torrur Dept., Warangal Dist.

¶24

'15. D. Ekambaram, S/o. Ramulu, E.No.650964, Presently working as Driver, APSRTC Torrur Depot, Warangal District.

¶25

16.N. Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Somaiah, E.No.650958, Presently working as Driver,

¶26

' APSRTC Torrur Depot, Warangal District.

¶27

'17.S. Bhaskar i/o. Simmaiah, E.No.650938, Preserttly vrorl-.ing as Driver, APSRTC Torr r r L)epot. Warangal District.

¶28

K. Yadagir,. lr,r. Yakaiah, E.No.650972, Presenrly^v,ork ng^as Driver, APSRTC N.rrs rnrpet Depot, Warangal Dlstrict.

¶29

19.B. Janardhan S/o llaiah, E.No.650984,^{Presentlytt'rrkrng as} Driver, APSRTC, [,4ah rboobabad Depot, Warangal District.

¶30

P. Venkateshrn rrru, S/o I,4allaiah, E.No.650956,^{Presently workrng as} Driver, APSRTC, It4ah brobabad Depot, Warangal District

¶31

2'1 .8. Ravinder 5'o. Buchiramulu, E.No.651008,^Prosentl) ',vorlling^as Driver, APSRTC. Harrr takonda Depot, Warangal District.

¶32

S. Buchaial-, i/o. Ramaiah, E.No.650988,^{Presently it,crkingas} Driver, Warangal ll De oI, Warangal District.

¶33

23.V. Sudhakar, l/o. Komuraiah, E.No.651005, Presently^{r,tork'ng as} Driver, Hanmakondzr D rpot Warangal District.

¶34

lV.S. Narayana, S/o. RaJa Lingam, E.No.650989,^Presently 'vorl<ing as Driver, Warangal - I fe )ot, Warangal District.

¶35

F'ETITIONERS

¶36

AND

¶37

The Chairman / '4anaging Director, APSRTC, Bus Bhavan,^{lt4usheerabad,} Hyderabad.

¶38

z The Regional [t/, nager, TSRTC, Warangal, Warang.rl Districl.

¶39

J The Depot l\rlzrn;3er, TSRTC, Warangal^{- lDepot, Wrrang,irll)ist'ict.}

¶40

4 The Depot Mane ;er, ISRTC, Warangal - ll Depot, Warangal Dislrict.

¶41

5 The Depot Mana ;er, TSRTC, Parkal Depot, Warangal Disttic'^.

¶42

6 The Depot Mana ;er, TSRTC. Torrur Depot, Warangal^D str ct

¶43

¶44

7 The Depot Mana ter, TSRTC, Narsampet Depot, Warangal Distrirt.

¶45

B The Depot Mana er, TSRTC, Hanmakonda^{Depot,WarangalDislrict.} RR 2 to B C.T^is r mended^{as per C.O dt. 251312022in lA 1/110 18}

¶46

Petition under A ticle^{226 of the constitution of lndia p'a'/ingthat in the} circumstances state(j^{'1 the affidavit filed therewith,the High co -rrt may be} pleased to issue an a1^propriate writ,^{orderof direction preftlr:rbly one in the} nature of writ of Mald^{rmus declaringthat the action of ther€sl 'ondentsin not} regularizing the servic^{)s of the petttionersas Grade-ll Drivers in warangal} RJgion w.ei.t., completir^{n of 240 days from the dateof their initial apf)ointment is} bai, arbitrary, illegal^{u rjust, unreasonable, discriminatoryand a so violation of} Art. 14, 16^&' 21^{oi C9n ,iitrtion of lndia and consequently direct tfre rlspondents} totreattheofficertlrrerdatedll.O3,2oo5andalso23.lo.i,.0)Tofthe2nd respondenthereinwhicr.sregularizationofthe-pelitionetsser.lir:esasGrade-lI OriJers-in Warangal^t?e tion^{w--e.f-, completionof 240 days from lre cate of their} initial appointment^{for apurposes}

¶47

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 11646 OF 2013)

¶48

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 issue an appropriate Writ order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to direct lhe respondents to treat the office order dated 11.03.2005 and also 23.10.2oo7 of the 2nd respondent herein which is regularization of the petitioners services as Grade-ll Drivers in warangal Region w.e.f., completion of 24O days from the date of their initial appointment for all purposes

¶49

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI C. RAJA SEKHAR REODy

¶50

Counsel for the Respondents: SRt GADDAM SR|N|VAS (SC FOR TSRTC)

¶51

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶52

¶53

THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶54

WRIT PETITION No .9344 of 201.3

¶55

ORDER:

¶56

This #rit Petition, under Article 226 of ll e Ccnstitution of India, is filed by the^petitioners seeking^{the fc llrtwingrelief:}

¶57

"..to ;sue an order, direction or writ in the tettur': of writ f Mandamus or any other a['propr,a;e writ decla,'nq the action of respondents in rot ree'u,ari/ing the s rvices of the petitioners as Grade-I[ L'r'r rcr:; in Warat g,tl Region w.e.f., completion of 24() dlt's frcm the d te, of their initial appointment is bad, ar,t.titrary, illegat unjust, unreasonable, discriminatory zr d ttlso violat, )n of Art. 14, 16 & 21 of Consti'utton o' Ir dia ana' c nsequently direct the responden.s lo 1r'Lat the office )rder dated 11.03.2005 and also 23.10.2'C0)' of the 2" respondent herein which is regularizatior, of the pehtic lers services as Grade-II Driver:; in lVarangal Regiot v/.e.f., completion of 240 days from the^(.late'of their i itial appointment for all purposes and^p'zs:s such other rder or orders.. "

¶58

Heard the learned counsel for the^petitior(, rs, learned Standing Cc rnsel for the respondent-Corpo'at on^{Ernd perused} the recorcl.

¶59

It is tt e case of the^petitioners that theY v/ere^selected and appoin .ed as Grade-II Drivers in tne^{-es londent} on Corporaticn daily wage basis, in differenr. Deoots of Warangal R(^gion, Hanmakonda,^{WarangalD stt ir.t,} -hrough regular prlc )ss of^{selection. That in 1998, resprrrde} rt^No.2

¶60

¶61

has issued a Notification vide^{No.P2/684(3)/97-R.M.(WL),} dated 27.06.1997 , for filling^{up of 229 postsof DriversGrade-} II in Warangal Region. Pursuant to the^{said Notification,the} petitioners have applied and got selected as Grade-II Drlvers in Warangal Region. Though the^{petitioners have completed} their 240 working days in the^{year 1999 itself and the} services oF the other co-employees^{were regularized after} completion of 240 working days, the services of^the petitioners were regularized in difFerent spells from 1999 to 2007. Hence, the^present writ^petition.

¶62

Learned counsel for the^{petitioners has statedthat the} authorities concerned have^{not regularized the services of the} petitioners from the date of their initial appointment, and that the authorities concerned have^{regularizedthe services of the} other co-employees without^{following any procedure.Learned} counsel has also stated that even though^{the petitioners have} completed the necessary eligibility^{period in the year 1999} itself, their iervices were regularized^{in the year 2005,} whereas,-the services of the other^{employees,who were} appointed along with the^{petitioners,were regularized much} earlier. Learned counsel for^{the petitioners has furtherstated}

¶63

that th is C( u-t, under similar circumstances, rn v'/.P No.B968 of 20i9, 1a ; t)assed the order dated 18.08.2022^(. irecting the respondentl therein to regularize the services oi the p,etitioner therein in tl e post of Junior Eng ineer/M a nager frc:m the date of his initial appointment, and^prayed this :ourt to direct the respondent ruthorities herein to regularize the sr:r,ric<rs of the petitioners f om the date of their initial appc,intmen t.

¶64

Per c( ntra/ learned Standing Counsel apiearing on behalf of th I respondents has stated that the^(ontertion of the^petitic)n{ rs that the services of other emplc,ye€rs were regularizerl absolutely false. That the petition lrs' services were regular zed on 01.01.2005 and the services or'the other eligible drive s were regularized prior to the, regu lerrization of the services )f the petitioners. That the regularization oF the petitioners' ervice is solely dependent on tlr(, vacancy position, nun ber of sanctioned posts and also on th e trasis of the region. T at the respondent authorities have s;cr-up;lously verified the e gibility of the petitioners and as^{per '.h} e v3cancy position anl he region wise vacancy, they have r:rgularized their servir:e:. The learned Standing Counsel lters 1'urther stated that tf e^present writ^petition is filed after .: lapse of

¶65

¶66

eight^years, and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of latches. In support of the said contentions, the learned Standing Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Regional Manager, APSRTC vs. N. Satyanarayana and othersl.

¶67

Heard both sides and^perused the record.

¶68

A perusal of the record shows that the services of the persons, who are junior to the petitioners, were regularized, contrary to the regulations of the respondent Corporation whether the same confers any right to the^petitioner to^get their services also regularized is a doubtable issue. Once, this Court finds that an illegality has been committecj by the authorities in regularizing the services of the^junior most drivers contrary to the regulation, the same cannot be perpetuated by giving a direction to the authorities to regularize the services of the^petitioner on^par with the other candidates whose services were regularized. In the counter affidavit, it is specifically stated by the respondents that the services of the^petitioners were regularized as^per seriatim, on the basis of the vacancy^position and also the sanctioned

¶69

,2008 1 scc

¶70

posts witftrr a particular region. Moreover, the [,er.itioners do not have ar y vested right to get their s€,rvice:i rec ularized from the la e of their initial appointment in the lbsence of any scheme, G.O., etc,

¶71

Havirrg rr:gard to the above and in the abse-rce of any Rule, Regula :i()n or G.O., which conFers any r glrt on the petitioners fc - seeking regularization from lhe d:t= .f their initial appoir,nrent, this Court is oF the opinion that no ma nda m Lts ca I be issued.

¶72

The 11o r'ble Supreme Court in Regional Nlarrager, APSRTC'S car e (Supra), held as under:

¶73

"No sr:n ce rule or regulation or ary otrcr principle rf law has been pressed into service b y the respc rdents to claim regularization from ar-r anterior ate i.e. right from the date of their initial aDp )intment as daily-wage employees,,

¶74

Even tho gh the learned counsel For the petitionelj has relied upon the order dated 18.08.2022, passed by :t-ris Court in W.P.No.B96t of 2019, the same is not applicable tc the facts of the pt'e:3t)t case.

¶75

10, For the af lresaid reasons, the writ petition is dr.:vo d of merit and the sa ne is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶76

¶77

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶78

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶79

To,

¶80

//TRUE COPY//

¶81

SD/.T.JAYASREE ASSISTANT GIST SECTION OFFICER

¶82

One CC to SRI C. RAJA SEKHAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI GADDATU SR|N|VAS (SC FOR TSRTC) tOpLiCl 3. Two CD Copies BN SB -,/ d

i I I

I iI

HIGH COUF T

DATED:03^t0 +12023

t
..4
4:'....
ll
_-t
Q-r
a

¶88

ORDER

¶89

WP.No.9344 tf 2013

¶90

DISMISSING^'-HE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CO STS

¶91

r
5J
?r f
{

M. Shivanandam, S/o. Abbaiah, v. The Chairman / Managing Director, Apsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Shivanandam, S/o. Abbaiah, v. The Chairman / Managing Director, Apsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Nagarjuna Rao s/o K. Sriram Murthy, Vs Geetha Vignana Aided High School

Mohd Bin Salam Vs Sandeep Kumar Sultania and 2 Others

B. Lavanya Vs Bogoju Raja Siddartha Shanakaragiri

G. Dasthagir, Sharmic, E 301914 Vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc

Gade Chakrapani Vs Mamidala Raju

Dr. Sandineni Ravinder Vs Osmania University Repby Registrar