A. SRINIVAS Vs. APSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ petition is challenging the proceedings, dtd. 10/4/2013 refusing to regularize his services on par with similarly situated persons.

(2.) Heard both sides and perused the record.

(3.) Petitioner had joined the service of respondent-RTC as a Cleaner on 15/3/1991. When his services were retrenched in July, 1993, he had approached the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad by filing I.D.No.101 of 1996, which was allowed by Award, dtd. 30/6/1999 directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service without back wages. Questioning the said Award, respondents have filed W.P.No.3957 of 2000, which was dismissed by order, dtd. 2/12/2010 directing for reinstatement of petitioner on par with similarly situated persons whose services were regularized vide proceedings, dtd. 4/8/1997. However, the petitioner was reinstated on 4/8/2002. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.19737 of 2002 which was disposed of on 10/10/2011 directing the respondents to extend the benefits on par with similarly situated persons. Inspite of such direction, he was not treated on par with other employees. Hence, the petitioner has made a representation on 8/8/2011 to the 2nd respondent requesting to regularize his service on par with the other employees, as he also possess the requisite qualifications for the post of Cleaner and he is in between position with the other employees whose services were regularized vide proceedings, dtd. 4/8/1997. It is also his case that after his reinstatement in the year 2002, he has been continuously working. When his representation was not disposed of, he again approached this Court by filing W.P.No.34477 of 2011, which was disposed of on 6/1/2012 directing the respondents to consider his representation, dtd. 8/8/2011. Pursuant to the said orders, the impugned order is passed by the respondents rejecting his representation, dtd. 8/8/2011. Hence, this writ petition.