APHC010398132013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 16902/2013 Between: 1. BEDA NARAYANAYYA, S/O. RAMANAIAH, OCC: DRIVER, E.949002, AGE: 46 YEARS, R/O. ISKAPALLI VILLAGE & POST, BANDELADODDI VEEDHI, ALLURU MANDAL, NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, NELLORE REGION, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, NELLORE. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PEETA RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent: 1. P DURGA PRASAD SC FOR APSRTC The Court made the following: 2 ORDER:- The petitioner is aggrieved by denial of monitory benefits of the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2010 till 01.12.2011, vide the orders passed by the respondents vide proceedings dated 27.02.2013. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged as a contract driver on 02.05.2005 and the petitioner could not attend the duty from 25.04.2008 till 30.05.2008. Against such absence, an enquiry was conducted and without initiating disciplinary proceedings, the Depot Manager, Kavali depot, terminated the services of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 30.05.2008. The petitioner submitted representation dated 15.07.2008 duly informing the respondents that he was undergoing treatment in RTC hospital and sought for re-engagement. The respondents have re- engaged the petitioner as a fresh contract driver on 16.12.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner was again re-engaged vide proceedings dated 13.02.2009. The Executive Director vide order dated 22.02.2010, granted permission for appointment of drivers working on contract basis, who was engaged during the years 2005, 2006 and upto April, 2007 and to consider the cases of those drivers who were working without any break in service. The regularization of those drivers was to be with effect from 01.01.2010. It is submitted that the petitioner’s case was not considered, though several of the colleagues and juniors of the petitioner were considered and their services were regularized with effect from 01.01.2010. 3 3. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not regularizing the petitioner’s services, the petitioner filed the W.P.No.28604 of 2010. The petitioner challenged the inaction of giving continuity of service for the petitioner and not regularizing the service of the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2010. The writ petition was disposed off on 19.11.2010, by modifying the order dated 16.12.2008 passed by the 1st respondent therein, whereby the petitioner was reinstated into service, but without back wages. The past service rendered by the petitioner shall be reckoned only for the purpose of computation of retirement benefits and for regularization of service. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the petitioner submitted another representation, it was considered and the petitioner services were regularized with effect from 01.01.2010. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from 01.01.2010 instead of the earlier proceedings whereby the service of the petitioner were regularized with effect from 01.12.2011, the petitioner is entitled for the monitory benefits with effect from 01.01.2010. 4. The learned Standing counsel, appearing for the respondents submits that a detailed counter is filed and it is submitted that the petitioner’s case was considered in accordance with the directions of this Court passed in W.P.No.28604 of 2010, whereby this Court had categorically directed the respondents to consider the past service rendered by the petitioner only for the purpose of computation of retirement benefits and not any other purposes. In pursuance of the said directions, the respondents vide proceedings dated 4 27.02.2013 had issued the date of appointment of the petitioner as 01.01.2010 instead of 01.12.2011. Insofar as the extension of monitory benefits is concerned, the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.28604 of 2010 was not appealed against by the petitioner and as such, there is no scope for extending monitory benefits for the past service rendered by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the past service of the petitioner shall be considered for notional purposes as already held by this Court in W.P.No.28604 of 2010. 5. Recording the submissions, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date.18.03.2026 SR