MOHAMMAD B IDDINABBA BEARY Vs. KSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS are the petitioners in W.P. No. 19337/2004 and W.P. No.20242/2004, being aggrieved by the order dated 25-2-2009 passed by the learned single Judge, wherein the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions filed by them upholding the endorsement issued by the second respondent, filed these writ appeals.

(2.) THE petitioners have contended that they were initially appointed as Badli conductors in the first respondent Corporation in the year 1974. Subsequently, their services have been terminated without any reasons or without any enquiry. On the basis of the circular bearing No.403 dated 23-4-1980 issued by the first respondent-Corporation directing the various divisions and depots to consider the case of the Badli conductors who have been terminated from service, for reinstatement. THE petitioners were reinstated and they were kept on probation. Subsequently their services were regularised. At present, the appellant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are working at Mangalore; appellant No.5 is dead and is represented by his legal representatives who are appellant Nos.6 to 11 herein and appellant No.12 is working at Chikkamagalur Division. After regularisation of their services, the services rendered as Badli conductors have not been taken into consideration for fixation of the salary, seniority, promotion and increments. However, the said benefits have been extended to some of the Badli conductors who are similarly situated. In view of that, the petitioners gave representation to the Respondent Corporation to consider their representation and to extend the benefit considering their services rendered as Badli conductors for fixation of pay, increment and promotion. Since, the said representation was not considered by the Competent Authority, the petitioners filed W.P. No.46901-46906/2002 before this Court. This Court by its order dated 6-8-2003 disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to the respondent-Corporation to consider the representation of the petitioners and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four months.

(3.) WE have carefully gone through the order impugned passed by the learned single Judge and endorsement issued by the respondents and considered the arguments addressed by the appellants.