IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5853 of 2000 Between: 1 Katragadda Nageswara Rao S/o Raghavaiah Addanki Depot, R/o Medarmetla, Prakasam District. 2 Rangisetty Hanumantha Rao S/o Subbaiah R/o Ramnagar, Addanki, Prakasam District. 3 Bheemani Narasimha Rao S/o Seshaiah, R/o Maddipadu, Prakasam District. 4 Turlapati Srinivasa Rao S/o Yellamnda, R/o Timmarajupalem, Prakasam District. 5 Shaik Kalesha Vali S/o Mahaboob,R/o Madduru, Prakasam District. 6 Chilukuri Venubabu S/o Anjaneyulu, R/o Inkollu, Prakasam District. 7 Thottampudi Srinivasa Rao S/o Venkata Subbaiah R/o Divalaravuru, Prakasam District. 8 G. Koteswara Rao S/o Dhamanu, R/o Timmarajupalem, Prakasam District. 9 Mangalapuri Srinivasulu Reddy S/o Poli Reddy R/o Cheerala, Prakasam District. 10 T. Kotaiah S/o T. Samelu, R/o Nuthalapadu, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Ongole, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to regularise the services from the date of their initial appointments mentioned in the Annexure for the petitioners with all consequential benefits in the light of the W.A.No.705/95 dt: 24-7-1995 holding that the action of the Respondents is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.S.A.K.MYNUDDIN Counsel for the Respondents : C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioners, who are appointed as Drivers in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation in Prakasam District, seeks directions for regularization of their services from the dates of their initial appointments in 1992. 2. Though this writ petition is filed in the year 2000, no counter affidavit is filed by the respondents. However, it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that the subject matter of this writ petition is covered to be dismissed in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Manager, APSRTC v. P.Lakshmoji Rao[1]. 3. A reading of the aforesaid judgment shows that it squarely covers the issue involved in this writ petition. In the present writ petition also, the petitioners are employed on daily wage basis in the year 1992, and they have filed this writ petition only in the year 2000, seeking regularization from the date of their initial appointment. 4. In view of the judgment referred above, this writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 13th February 2009. ajr [1] (2004) 2 SCC 433