IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 15142 of 1999 Between: G.Rajagopal Rao, S/o Subbanna, Nellore, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.Corporation, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Nellore. 2 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Atmakur, Nellore District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not regularising the services of the petitioner in the post of driver from the data of this initial appointment as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioner in the postof driver from the date of his initial appointment as driver with all consequential beneﬁts and pass such other or order or orders as deemed ﬁt and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing his services in the post of Driver from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 22-01-1984 as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to regularize his services in the post of Driver from the date of his initial appointment as Driver with all consequential benefits. The petitioner was initially appointed in the respondent- Corporation as a casual Driver on 22-01-1984, but however, while he was in service on 04-11-1984 he caused an accident and so he services were disengaged by the order dated 25-11-1984. Though it is submitted that he was acquitted from the criminal charge in C.C.No.18/85 on the ﬁle of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, the same has no relevance for the purpose of adjudicating the dispute in the present writ petition. During the pendency of criminal proceedings, on his representation he was reinstated into service on 17-12-1987. Thereafter, his services were regularized by appointing him in the regular vacancy in the time scale with effect from 01-08-1988. It is the case of the petitioner that services of the other candidates who were appointed along with him were regularized from the date of their initial appointment i.e. 22-01-1984. In that view of the matter, the petitioner seeks the same relief by pointing out the discrimination in not extending him the beneﬁt of regularization from 22-01-1994 that was extended to other persons, who were selected as casual Drivers along with him. However, it is to be noted that on account of negligence and causing accident on 04-11-1984 his services were disengaged on 25-11-1984 and thereafter up to 17-12-1987 he was out of service and on his representation he was re-engaged on 17-12-1987 and thereafter within a short span of time i.e. within a year his services were regularized from 01-08-1988. Though his services were regularized and he was appointed in a regular vacancy in 1988 itself, this writ petition is ﬁled belatedly in 1999 seeking directions for the beneﬁt of regularization from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 22-01-1984. Since the petitioner was not in continuous service and since he was disengaged on 25-11-1984, he is not entitled for regularization from the date of 22-01-1984. Though the selections were made by following the regular procedure, his appointment in the year 1984 was on daily wage basis. In that view of the matter, he is not entitled for regularization with eﬀect from 22-01-1984 i.e. from the date of his initial appointment. In any event, since the petition itself is ﬁled belatedly after a period of 11 years of his regularization on 01-08-1988, on this ground also the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The writ petition is thus devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J September 18, 2008 CVRK