http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5158 of 2007

PETITIONER: The Regional Manager, APSRTC

RESPONDENT: N. Satyanarayana and Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/11/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO.      5158               OF 2007 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 17859 of 2005)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted.

2.      Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a  Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ  Appeal No.874 of 2005 dismissing the appeal filed by the  appellants and thereby upholding the order passed by a  learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.16244 of 1999 and  some other writ petitions.  The present appeal relates to Writ  Petition No.16244 of 1999 which was filed by the respondents. 3.      Factual position is almost undisputed.  The respondents  were appointed as Conductors w.e.f. 31.10.1996 on daily  wages basis.  Although the appointments of the respondents  were on daily wages basis, their services were to be regularized  in a phased manner as and when sanctioned vacancies arose.   Since sanctioned vacancies arose and the respondents had  completed 240 days of service, in terms of policy decision,  their services were regularized w.e.f. 1.8.1987.  After passage  of more than a decade, respondents filed a writ petition i.e.  Writ Petition (C) No.16244 of 1999 seeking regularization of  their services from the date of initial appointment with all  consequential benefits. By order dated 18.08.2004, learned  Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition along with other  cases allowing the writ petitions purportedly following the  decision of this Court in Divisional Manager, APSRTC and Ors.  v.  P. Lakshmoji Rao and Ors. (2004 (2) SCC 433).

4.      Writ Appeals were filed before the High Court challenging  the learned Single Judge’s order on the ground that on a  misreading of this Court’s judgment in Divisional Manager,  APSRTC and Ors.  case (supra) the writ petition was allowed. 5.      The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal holding  that the judgment of this Court in Divisional Manager,  APSRTC’s case (supra) applied to the facts of the case.

6.      In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the  appellant - Corporation submitted that both the learned Single  Judge and the Division Bench did not appreciate the ratio of  the decision in Divisional Manager, APSRTC’s case (supra) in  the proper perspective and have erroneously held that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

decision applied to the case of the respondents.

7.      There is no appearance on behalf of any of the  respondents in spite of service of notice.

8.      The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition  relied on paragraph-18 of the judgment of this Court. The  same reads as follows:

       "In view of this peculiar situation and in  order to avoid the anomalies that might  otherwise ensue, while we hold that the  respondent employees have failed to establish  their legal right to get the status of regular  employees right from the date of their initial  appointment on daily-wage basis and the  respective dates of regularization assigned to  the respondents cannot be legally faulted, we  are inclined to mould the relief in modification  of the directions given in the judgments under  appeal and direct as follows:

       "If any of the conductors, junior to  the respondents in the relevant senior list  of the concerned Division/Region, have  got the benefit of seniority and  regularization OR are entitled to get the  same by virtue of the judgments that  have become final, then the respondents  who are seniors to them, shall be given  the same benefit on the same principle."

9.      It is to be noted that the ratio of the decision in the said  case was to the following effect:

       "It is difficult to comprehend the ratio of  the above decision. While purporting to clarify  the order passed in the writ petition by the  learned Single Judge, the Division Bench  imported a totally alien concept of continuous  service within the meaning of Section 25-B of  the I.D. Act which was for the special purpose  of applying the provisions as to lay off and  retrenchment contained in Chapter V-A of the  Act.  Moreover, the order in the writ appeal is  as vague as it could be.  The expression ’date  of continuous appointment’ makes no sense.   Even if it is taken that the said wording has  been inaccurately used for the words  ’continuous service’, still, the direction is  unintelligible.  Continuous service within the  meaning of Section 25-B for how long?   Nothing has been specified. In this state of  things, in W.P. No. 24263 of 1998, a learned  Single Judge proceeded on the basis that as  per the decision in W.A. No.705/1995, the  employees were entitled to seek regularization  with effect from the date of initial appointment,  thus, making the clarification given by the  Division Bench virtually otiose.              

       In the light of the above discussion, we  are of the view that the law laid down or the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

directions given in various writ petitions/writ  appeals are not legally sustainable for more  than one reason.  Firstly, wrong criterion  based on Section 25-B of I.D. Act was applied  in case after case. Secondly, the respondents  and other similarly situated employees  approached the Court under Article 226 long  after their regularization, thereby unsettling  the settled position.  Thirdly, on the facts of  these cases, it is evident that the services of  the employees who were recruited as  Conductors were regularized within a  reasonable time.  The respondent-employees  were, therefore, treated fairly.  No service rule  or regularization or any other principle of law  has been pressed into service by the  respondents to claim regularization from an  anterior date i.e. right from the date of their  initial appointment as daily wage employees."                                                                                                  10.     Even a bare reading of paragraph-18 of the judgment on  which reliance has been placed by the learned Single Judge  and the Division Bench, it is clear that the relief was moulded  to avoid anomalies and in view of the peculiar situation  involved.  This Court categorically held that the orders  impugned in the appeals were not sustainable because the  writ petitions were filed after a long lapse of time.  Similar is  the position here.  The regularization was done w.e.f. 1.8.1987  and the writ petitions were filed in the year 1999.  That being  so and since in the writ petition without any explanation has  been offered for the delayed approach, writ petition should  have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

11.     The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench clearly  lost sight of this fact and as rightly contended by learned  counsel for the appellant, misread the judgment of this Court  to grant relief to the respondents.  Orders of both the learned  Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court need to  be vacated and we direct accordingly.

12.     The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without  any order as to costs.