ORDER : 1. The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction by declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the petitioner’s services which effect from 01.09.2014 along with other contract drivers as per the order dated 19.09.2014 of the 2nd respondent and non-payment of his Revised Pay Scales, 2013, arrears is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21 of Constitutional of India and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the petitioners services on par with his juniors whose services were regularized, as per the orders dated 19.09.2014 of the 2nd respondent with all consequential benefits and direct the respondents to pay the difference of arrears and all consequential and attendant benefits and Revised Pay Scales, 2013, arrears with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and grant costs of the proceedings and to pass such other orders in the circumstances of the case”. 2.The brief facts of the case are that: in pursuance of the notification issued in 2010, the petitioner who belongs to ST (Erukula)Community was selected and appointed as Contract Driver in the year, 2011, after due process of selection conducted by the respondents under the caption of “ST Backlog” and the petitioner joined in duty in Podili Depot on 19.12.2011 and continued till 2016. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to 3rd respondent-Depot, in April, 2016. 3. Later, the services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from 01.05.2016, as per the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 30.06.2016, but whereas the services of his juniors were regularized as per the orders of the 2nd respondent on 19.09.2014 itself. 4. The case of the petitioner is that in the order of regularization of his juniors, it has been categorically stated that, contract drivers who has been engaged during the year up to 2012 and are continued without break in services and on rolls, their services were regularized. 5. The specific contention of the petitioner is that if the above principle is applied, the petitioner who was on rolls as on December, 2012 and continued in service without any break, also entitled to be regularized, on par with his juniors. 5. The specific contention of the petitioner is that if the above principle is applied, the petitioner who was on rolls as on December, 2012 and continued in service without any break, also entitled to be regularized, on par with his juniors. The 1st respondent being an instrument of the state is constitutionally bound to implement the rule of reservation but whereas, the respondents have violated the rule of reservation by not regularizing the services of petitioner on par with his juniors. 6. Immediately, after coming to know that his juniors were regularized, the petitioner requested the respondents on several occasions, requesting to regularise his services with effect from 01.09.2014. Because of the inaction of the respondents, the petitioner was put to irreparable loss and hardship and as there is huge difference in the pay and allowance and other consequential benefits and if this gap is taken into consideration over the remaining period of his service, there will be substantial loss to the petitioner in terms of pay and other benefits. 7. Besides this, the case of the petitioner is that though he is entitled to arrears in pursuance of Revised Pension Scales, 2013, as per the certificate issued by the respondent dated 04.10.2016, the respondents have quantified his pay fixation arrears at Rs.90,079/- and failed to release the same stating that the said amounts will be released without interest after the petitioner’s retirement, which is illegal and bad in law. 8. The respondents filed their counter admitting the fact that the petitioner was initially engaged as temporary driver on 09.12.2011 on contract basis. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued instructions vide Office Order No.OS3/123(5)/2012-PO-III, dated 30.08.2014, to appoint 84 contract drivers of Prakasam Region who have been recruited and engaged up to December, 2012 and continued to work without break in service and on rolls as on that date. 9. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent vide order No.E2/123(3)/2014-RM(O), dated 19.09.2014 has appointed 84 such contract drivers who are found eligible by strictly following the roaster of seniority of contract drivers of Prakasam Region, which was approved by the selection committee at the time of recruitment of contract drivers, which infact is the base for placing them under time scale as Driver Grade-II with probationary rights with effect from 01.09.2014. 10. 10. The respondents further contended that, all the 84 contract drivers who have been appointed under Regular Time Scale with effect from 01.09.2014, are seniors to the petitioner as per roaster of seniority and none of them are juniors to the petitioner. 11. Though the petitioner was engaged prior to 2012 and having continuous service up to December, 2012, the petitioner was not appointed and placed under Regular Times Scale with effect from 01.09.2014. Since, the petitioner does not fall under the restricted sanctioned 84 vacancies, the petitioner was placed under Regular Time Scale with effect from 01.05.2016 in the next phase vide Office Order No.E2/123(1)/2016-RM(O), dated 30.06.2016 of the 2nd respondent, in terms of the instructions communicated from Head Office. 12. With regard to the Revised Pension Scale, 2013, it is stated in the counter that arrears bonds were issued by the management, based on the memorandum of settlement entered with the recognized Trade Union and management on 06.07.2015. As per the Revised Pension Scales, 2013, bond, the petitioner is entitled for receipt of Revised Pay Scales, 2013, arrears to a tune of Rs.90,079/- without any interest only at the time of cessation from the Corporation. As per the said decision taken by the Corporation, RPS, 2013 arrears were paid to all the employees in three instalments. Accordingly, requested to dismiss the Writ Petition. 13. To the said counter-affidavit, the petitioner counsel filed a reply-affidavit, stating that the contract drivers who were recruited up to 2012 and were continued up to December, 2012, without any break in service are entitled for regularization and further contended that the petitioner was recruited and appointed under Schedule Tribe category under a special drive and ST Backlog notification issued by the 1st respondent-Corporation in the year, 2010. Hence, his case is to be considered separately as a special case. 14. Heard Sri.M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners and P.Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 15. The counsel for the petitioner also filed additional material papers showing the Backlog vacancies and drivers of the year, 2010, as per which there were 35 ST male Backlog vacancies and four(04) ST female Backlog vacancies. 14. Heard Sri.M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners and P.Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 15. The counsel for the petitioner also filed additional material papers showing the Backlog vacancies and drivers of the year, 2010, as per which there were 35 ST male Backlog vacancies and four(04) ST female Backlog vacancies. The specific case of the petitioner is that though the petitioner was selected and appointed under a backlog vacancy, in pursuance of the notification in the year, 2010 and that as in the year, 2010 itself there were 35 ST backlog vacancies, his case should have been considered for regularization and he is entitled for regularization with effect from 01.09.2014 on completion of 240 days. 16. The other ground raised by the petitioner is that as per the seniority list, though the counter states that the petitioner’s roster is placed at Sl.No.349. But, on perusal of the said list filed by the petitioner as an additional document, it appears that admittedly no such Serial number is allotted to the petitioner, whereas, the petitioner is placed in between Sl.No. 349 and Sl.No.350. The petitioner is not allotted with any roaster Sl.No., but whereas one Sri.T.M.Ravi Kumar was allotted the roaster Sl.No.349. 17. From the above and on perusal of seniority list, it is very clear that no roaster serial number is allotted to the petitioner, though he was engaged in the year, 2011 itself. Admittedly, the petitioner is entitled for regularization as on the date of completion of 240 days. 18. The certificate for payment of arrears of Revised Pay Scales, 2013, reads as follows: “in terms of circular No.PD-1/2015 dated 15.06.2015, and circular No.PD-03/2015 dated 10.07.2015, the above amount will be released without interest at the time of cessation from service of the corporation after deducting the Income Tax, PF etc and adjusting other dues to the corporation, if any, along with other terminal benefits.” 19. As seen from the said certificate, it appears that though the respondents have admitted that the petitioner is entitled for Revised Pay Scales, 2013, arrears, the same were not released to the petitioner but were released subject to payment of the same at the time of cessation from the services, which is admittedly bad in law. As seen from the said certificate, it appears that though the respondents have admitted that the petitioner is entitled for Revised Pay Scales, 2013, arrears, the same were not released to the petitioner but were released subject to payment of the same at the time of cessation from the services, which is admittedly bad in law. The employees are entitled for the revised pay scales, 2013, as and when they are eligible, which is to be added to their salary but cannot be made subject to the payment of the same at the time of cession from service. The revised pay scale is the benefit given to the employees, which cannot be subjected to certain conditions. 20. As seen from the notification dated 24.03.2010, it is very clear that the petitioner was selected and appointed as a contract driver under ST backlog category and also as seen from the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 30.08.2014, according permission for appointment of drivers and conductors on regular time scale of pay, the following instruction was issued: (i) to consider the contract drivers who have been recruited and engaged up to December, 2012 and continued to work without any break in services and on rolls. 21. As per the said instructions, admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in the year, 2011 and having continuously worked as driver up to December, 2012, without any break in service is also entitled for regularization and as well as regular Time Scale of Pay as per the said guide lines. The respondents though they have regularized the services of the juniors of the petitioner vide orders dated 19.09.2014, have regularized the services of the petitioner with effect from 01.05.2016, which is nothing but contrary to the proceedings dated 19.09.2014. 22. In view of the same, this court feels it appropriate to allow the Writ Petition by directing the 2nd respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from 01.09.2014 as was done in the case of other contract drivers as per the orders dated 19.09.2014 and also to release the arrears of Revised Pay Scales, 2013, to the petitioner immediately. The said exercise regarding the regularization and as well as payment of Revised Pay Scales, 2013, arrears would be completed within a period of Six(06) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of order. 23. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The said exercise regarding the regularization and as well as payment of Revised Pay Scales, 2013, arrears would be completed within a period of Six(06) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of order. 23. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 24. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.