O. SUSEELA & Ors. v. THE DEPUT

9. S. VENKATESWARLU,, S/O. S. NAGABHUSHANA CHARY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: CONDUCTOR, E.NO.726890, WORKING AT APSRTC, PIDUGURALLA DEPOT, GUNTUR DISRICT.

10. K. BHUPATI RAO,, S/O. K. PAPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: CONDUCTOR, E.NO.726686, WORKING AT APSRTC, PIDUGURALLA DEPOT, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

11. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO,, S/O. P. SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: CONDUCTOR, E.NO.726712, WORKING AT APSRTC, PIDUGURALLA DEPOT, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

12. M. VEERAIAH,, S/O. KOTEMARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC: CONDUCTOR, E.NO.726514, WORKING AT APSRTC, GUNTUR - I DEPOT, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

13. P. SURESH BABU,, S/O. ROSAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: CONDUCTOR, E.NO.726690, WORKING AT APSRTC, GUNTUR - I DEPOT, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

14. P. SUJATHA,, D/O. P. ANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: CONDUCTOR, E.NO.726733, WORKING AT APSRTC, GUNTUR - I DEPOT, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

15. A. LNNAIAH,, S/O. A.L. MARIYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: CONDUCTOR, E.NO.726697, WORKING AT APSRTC, PIDUGURALLA DEPOT, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND

1. THE STATE OF A P REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT, ROADS & BUILDING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, HYDERABAD.

2. THE VICE CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR, APSRTC BUS BHAVAN, MUSHEERABAD, HYDERABAD.

3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER APSRTC, GUNTUR REGION, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 3 Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC

2. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS The Court made the following: 4 ORDER:- Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners were recruited as conductors after having successfully completed the selection process in pursuance of notification dated 22.11.1999. The respondents initially notified the vacancies of 160 conductors and thereafter, 40 more vacancies were added to the notification. The petitioners were recruited on casual basis in the year 1999 and have joined the respective place of postings soon after the selection process was completed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondent authorities had regularized the services of several conductors, except the petitioners and the regularization was in the year 1999-2002. It is further submitted that though the petitioners were disengaged for a specified of time, they were again re-engaged and had completed 240 days of service in a year which entitles them for seeking regularization of their services. It is also submitted that several such conductors working in the respondent organization were regularized from the date of their initial appointment. It is submitted that the petitioners were regularized on 05.10.2007 vide proceedings dated 08.10.2007. It is further submitted that the conductors who were recruited in the same notification were regularized in the year 1999-2002. However, the petitioners were not regularized on par with the other conductors who are selected along with the petitioners in pursuance of the very same notification.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, places reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.No.16379 of 2011, whereby this Court directed the respondents therein to regularize the services of the petitioners with effect from the date of on which they were selected in persons of the notification. A further direction to complete the said process within a period of two months was issued to the 5 respondents. It is also submitted that in pursuance of the said notification and in pursuance of the orders of this Court, the petitioners therein were regularized from the date of their initial appointment. It is submitted that the petitioners have been extended a different yardstick insofar as regularization of their services is concerned.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the conductors working in Piduguralla depot were regularized from the date of their initial appointments and several employees working in the respondent organization as conductors were extended the said benefits including the employees working at Falaknuma depot. It is submitted that the respondents have chosen to deny the regularization of the petitioners from the date of initial appointment and as such claim that they are entitled and their services are on par with the other conductors who are regularized.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Divisional Manager, APSRTC and others Vs. P.Lakshmoji Rao and others1, whereby, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if any conductors junior to the respondents in the relevant seniority list of the concerned Division/Region, have got the benefit of seniority and regularization or are entitled to get the same by virtue of the judgments that have become final, then the respondents who are seniors to them, shall be given the same benefit on the same principle.

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the petitioners were regularized vide Proceedings dated 08.10.2007 and it is submitted that their regularization could be possible only after a regular vacancy arose in the 1 2004 (16) AIC 546 6 said Depot/Region. It is submitted that the petitioners’ services cannot be considered as the services on par with the other conductors working in other regions. Each Depot/Region would be considered as a separate unit and recruitment and postings would be depending on the available vacancies therein. As such, the regularization from the date of regularization of other conductors working in other regions cannot be extended to the petitioners as the regularization of those conductors working in those regions was completely dependent on the available vacancies in that specific Depot/Region.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that mere completion of 240 days of continuous service cannot ipso facto make the petitioners eligible for regularization. It is also submitted that the petitioners are claiming for regularization from the year 1999 and have challenged the Proceedings issued on 08.10.2007 after lapse of five years, as such on the delay and latches also the writ petition would have to be dismissed.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1) Gangadhar Pillai Vs. Siemens Limited2 2) Divisional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C and others Vs. P.Lakshmoji Rao and others 3 and 3) Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C Vs. N.Satyanarayana and others4.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

10. Perused the record.