Telangana High Court
G.Radha Krishnan.Medak Dist. vs The ... on 17 December, 2018
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION No. 19919 of 2002
ORDER:
1. This writ petition is filed seeking to absorb the petitioner in the services of the APSRTC as the petitioner worked in private bus service.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he worked in private bus service as Checking Inspector and due to nationalization of routes, the management terminated his services, and a scheme was formulated to absorb displaced employees, but his case for absorption in the respondent-Corporation was rejected vide proceedings dated 25.1.1999. The petitioner produced a certificate issued by the Labour Officer to the effect that he worked in private bus service. Challenging the rejection proceedings dated 25.1.1999, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any documents to establish that he was employed in private bus service and also on the ground that more than five employees of private service were already absorbed into the services of the respondent-Corporation. He further submits that the case of the petitioner was considered only for the post of cleaner and driver, whereas the petitioner AKS,J W.P.No.19919/2002 2 worked as Checking Inspector in the private bus service and therefore, the case of the petitioner can be considered for any post equal to the post held by the petitioner in private service, and appropriate orders may be passed directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in any suitable post by examining the documents issued by the Labour Officer, which would prove that the petitioner worked with private service.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents contends that the case of the petitioner was considered and the same was rejected vide proceedings dated 25.1.1999 and that there are no merits in this writ petition.
5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, this Court is of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the 2nd respondent with the supporting documents for absorption into the services of the respondent- Corporation.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the 2nd respondent with the supporting documents, for absorption into the services of the respondent-Corporation, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such AKS,J W.P.No.19919/2002 3 representation being received, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, without being influenced by the earlier rejection order dated 25.1.1999, within a period of four weeks thereafter. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.
___________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 17th December, 2018 Nn AKS,J W.P.No.19919/2002 4 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Writ Petition No.19919 of 2002 (disposed of) 17th December, 2018 Nn