APHC010335902013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 10508/2013 Between: 1. T.SUBBA RAO S/O T.JAGAPATI RAO,, CONTRACT DRIVER, C- 55072, H.NO.48-6-7, OPP:ESI HOSPITAL, GUNDALA, VIJAYAWADA- 520 004, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT, CORPORATION, MUSHIRABAD, HYDERABAD, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, A.P.S.R.T.C., VIJAYAWADA ZONE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE REGIONAL MANAGER A P S R T C, GUNTUR REGION, GUNTUR. 4. THE DY CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER A P S R T C GUNTUR, - 5. THE DEPOT MANAGER A P S R T C, MANGALAGIRI DEPOT, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A G SATYANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SANISETTY VENKATESWARLU SC For APSRTC The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 29.04.2010, requesting to permit to withdraw his resignation. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, virtually online, submits that the petitioner was engaged as a contract driver on 02.08.2005 and was transferred to the Mangalagiri Depot in the year 2009. It is submitted that the petitioner had to attend to his ailing and aged father and as such the petitioner intended to apply for leave. It is further submitted that the Depot Manager advised the petitioner to resign and attend to petitioner’s father and report back to duty after his father’s health condition improved. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner followed the suggestion of the Depot Manager and submitted his resignation letter on 06.05.2009, which was accepted by the competent authority on 07.05.2009. It is further submitted that the petitioner reported back on 25.02.2010 seeking his re-engagement. Accordingly to the petitioner submitted a representation dated 29.04.2010 seeking to withdraw his resignation. It is also submitted that the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation is empowered to permit the employee to withdraw his resignation within two years from the date of its acceptance. However, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the respondents have not acted upon the petitioner’s request. 4 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the service regularization applies to contract employees as well and as such, there is no impediment prohibiting the 1st respondent to permit the petitioner to withdraw his resignation. 5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has approached this Court after a lapse of four years from the date of submitting his resignation and that the terms of engagement of the petitioner are clear and unambiguous. It is submitted that the engagement of the petitioner was for a specified period of time and such engagement would not ipso facto entitle the petitioner to claim for re-engagement or engagement on regular basis. It is further submitted that the 1st respondent has not considered the case of the petitioner as the regulations of the Corporation are not applicable to contract employees. 6. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation. 7. Perused the record. 8. The petitioner was engaged as a contract driver vide office order dated 02.08.2005 and the initial engagement was only for a period three months. However, the services of the contract drivers were renewed from time to time and were continued till the petitioner submitted his resignation. The office order dated 02.08.2005 would indicate that the engagement of the petitioner 5 was for a specified period and the contract drivers cannot claim any right to further engagement on contract basis and the contract drivers cannot seek for regularization of their services in future. The terms and conditions of the contract service agreement entered into with the Corporation and the instructions issued from time to time by VC&MD would govern the engagement or disengagement of contract labour. 9. The reason for submitting resignation letter by the petitioner was to attend to a medical emergency which the petitioner’s father was facing at that point of time. The petitioner’s efforts to secure leave are purportedly rejected by the 5th respondent. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner attempted to apply for the leave. Clause-7 of the office order dated 02.08.2005 would clearly state that continuous absence for three days without reasons and prior notice, the engagement would stands terminated without further notice. This clause implies that contract labour could have apply for leave by issuing prior intimation to the 5th respondent. No such effort seems to have been made by the petitioner. 10. That apart, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition after a lapse of almost three years from the date of submitting his representation seeking withdrawal of his resignation. No valid reasons are also stated for the abnormal delay. On these grounds, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The terms of engagement would have to be considered as the governing guidelines for engagement of the petitioner. The office order dated 6 02.08.2005 would not entitled the petitioner to seek for reinstatement or re- engagement at the request of the petitioner. 11. In view of the above considerations, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date.20.01.2026 SR