IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 35551 of 1998 Dated: 15th February 2008. Between: Vale Rama Rao and 28 others .. Petitioners And The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Satavahana Region, Vijayawada and three others .. Respondents ORAL ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by 29 drivers of the 1st respondent – Road Transport Corporation, state owned transport corporation, seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to regularize their services as drivers from the date of their initial appointment read with the terms contained in Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as was held applicable in the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 705 of 1995 dated 24.7.1995. The case in short of the petitioners is that they were initially engaged on daily wage basis as drivers and that their services have been regularized by an Office Order dated 5.8.1995 regularising their services with effect from 1.8.1995, in terms of Regulation 17 of the APSRTC Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have put in nearly four years of service by 1.8.1995 and this four years of service benefit would be lost out because of this office order dated 5.8.1995 which prescribes 1.8.1995 as the date of appointment. They placed reliance upon the judgment dated 10.2.1998 reported in 1998(2) ALT 447 (DB) wherein this Court directed the services of similarly placed drivers to be regularized with effect from the date of their initial appointment, subject to their completing continuous service of 240 days. Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC has pointedly drawn my attention to the judgment rendered by the Suprme Court in 12.11.2007 in Civil Appeal No. 5158 of 2007. The Supreme Court had considered the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 705 of 1995 and concluded the entire issue in its judgment as under : “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 d o n e w.e.f. 1.8.1987 and the writ petitioners 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.” In view of the latest binding precedent of the Supreme Court dated 12.11.2007, the relief prayed for by the writ petitioners cannot be accorded and therefore the writ petition is dismissed, but, however, without costs. ________________________ N.RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 15th February, 2008 Knk