APHC010250312011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 29553/2011 Between: V.Siddaiah, Cuddapah Dist ...PETITIONER AND APSRTC Rep By Managing Director Hyd 6 Otrs and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A BHASKARA CHARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) 2. K V SUBBA REDDY The Court made the following: WP.No.29553 of 2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION No.29553 of 2011 O R D E R : The petitioner is seeking a declaration to declare the inaction on part of the 1st respondent in not implementing the Circular No.SWS2/604(14)/76-PD, dated 07.02.1976. The petitioner claims that the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner and passed the proceedings dated 13.10.2011. The petitioner is also claiming a consequential direction to respondents 1 and 2 for implementing the circular referred above. The petitioner also seeks to reckon the temporary service of the petitioner and to grant consequential benefits from the date of regular sanctioned post i.e., 30.10.1977. The petitioner also seeks a direction to place the petitioner over and above the respondents 3 to 7. 2. The petitioner joined the respondent/corporation as a Cleaner on 02.08.1975. The petitioner submitted his option to work in Kadapa Workshop in accordance with the option Circular No.115/75-76, dated 07.12.1976. Though the petitioner submitted his option form was retained in the capacity of Mechanic and only on 18.10.1977 the petitioner was transferred. 3. A seniority list was prepared and the petitioner submitted his objections. The same was rejected. The petitioner filed WP.No.29553 of 2011 WP.No.6115 of 1982 seeking regularization of his services from the date of promotion i.e., 28.04.1976, the same was rejected. The petitioner filed another writ petition vide WP.No.15543 of 2009. This Court on 18.11.2009 directed the respondent/corporation to consider his case on par with respondent Nos.6 to 7 within a period of six weeks and pass appropriate orders, as the same was rejected then the petitioner filed CC.No.45 of 2010. The contempt case was dismissed as the appeal was pending. 4. The petitioner claims that he is entitled for considering his service from 30.10.1977 and also reckon the temporary service of the petitioner. 5. The respondent/corporation has filed a detailed counter and in the counter it is stated that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Cleaner at Ananthapur Depot on 02.08.1975. The petitioner subsequently passed Trade Test and was selected to the post of Mechanic and posted to Ananthapur Depot on promotion as Mechanic. The petitioner assumed the post of Mechanic on 28.04.1976. Options were called for from Mechanics and Shramiks to work at the Kadapa Work Shop. It was made clear that there was no guarantee of final seniority in Kadapa workshop WP.No.29553 of 2011 and the same would be subject to availability of vacancies in that categories. 6. The petitioner was posted to Regional workshop at Kadapa on his own request on 05.10.1977. It was made clear to the petitioner that he would become the Juniormost Mechanic in the Regional Workship, Kadapa. It is also stated that the petitioner accepted the terms and conditions of transfer order and reported for work at Regional Workship, Kadapa on 24.10.1977. 7. It is submitted that the Regional Workship, Kadapa is a separate unit and the seniority of the employees is maintained as a different unit. It is also submitted that the petitioner filed WP.No.6115 of 1982 claiming seniority and the same was dismissed, the writ appeal was preferred by the petitioner and the same was dismissed. It is also stated that the petitioner filed ID.No.211 of 1989 before the Labour Court and the same was also dismissed. 8. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed WP.No.1443 of 2009 which was disposed off with a direction to the corporation to consider the representations of the petitioner to fix his seniority above the unofficial respondents. The respondent/corporation passed detailed orders rejecting the claim of the petitioner on 19.12.2009 and that the said proceedings are not under challenge. WP.No.29553 of 2011 9. The petitioner filed WP.No.8283 of 2010 which was disposed on 29.07.2011 with an observation that the appeal of the petitioner pending before the 1st respondent was to be disposed off in accordance with rules. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent/corporation rejected the claim of the petitioner by passing the impugned proceedings in the present writ petition. 10. It is submitted that the petitioner has been trying to repeatedly reclaiming his grievance of refixing his seniority and placing him above the unofficial respondents. It is submitted that the issue has been dealt with by the respondents and detailed orders were passed. The claim of the petitioner cannot be considered as the same is against the rules. The petitioner has filed reply submitting that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner was in a mechanical manner. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 12. As borne out from record, this is the fifth round of litigation seeking the similar relief. WP.No.6115 of 1982 was initially filed and the same was dismissed, WA.No.714 of 1988 was dismissed at the stage of admission. ID.No.211 of 1989 was filed before the Labour Court, Ananthapur for the same cause and the same was WP.No.29553 of 2011 dismissed. WP.No.15543 of 2009 was filed seeking a direction to consider the representations dated 20.03.2009 and 14.05.2009. The said writ petition was disposed off. Detailed orders were passed on 19.12.2009 and the said orders are not under challenge. 13. The WP.No.8283 of 2010 was filed alleging that the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the 1st respondent was not disposed off. This Court directed the 1st respondent to dispose the appeal. A detailed order rejecting the case of the petitioner was passed on 13.10.2011. 14. The writ petition was filed after the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent judgment dated 27.11.2024 passed in the matter of the State of West Bengal and others v. Dr. Amal Satpathi and others, the grievance of the petitioner for considering him promotion and seniority after attaining the age of superannuation cannot be considered by this Court 15. The petitioner cannot claim the same relief which was already adjudicated by this Court and the dispute has reached finality. The writ petition is hit by res-judicata and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment between State of WP.No.29553 of 2011 West Bengal and others v. Dr. Amal Satpathi and others, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed without costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dated 13.03.2025 KGM WP.No.29553 of 2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION No.29553 of 2011 Dated 13.03.2025 KGM