IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE WRIT APPEL Nos. 1614, 1644, 1714, 1716, 1718, 1735, 1789, 1806, 1811 of 1999, 830 of 2000 and 1320 of 2001 and WP.Nos. 12614 of 1998, 957 of 2000, 5071 of 2000 and 14361 of 2001 Writ Appeal No.1614 of 1999: Between: The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Srikakulam Region, Srikakulam District & others. … Appellants And Sri P.K.S. Sunil & others. … Respondents. Counsel for the Appellants : Sri C. Appaiah Sharma, Sri K. Madhava Reddy and Sri K. Srinivasa Rao Counsel for the respondents: Sri T.S. Venkataramana, Sri A. Rama Rao, Sri V. Narayana Reddy and Ms. B. Malleswari This Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR. ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEL Nos. 1614, 1644, 1714, 1716, 1718, 1735, 1789, 1806, 1811 of 1999, 830 of 2000 and 1320 of 2001 and WP.Nos. 12614 of 1998, 957 of 2000, 5071 of 2000 and 14361 of 2001 COMMON JUDGMENT:- (Per C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) While WA.Nos.1614, 1644, 1714, 1716, 1718, 1735, 1789, 1806, 1811 of 1999 and 830 of 2000 have been filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, “the Corporation”), the writ petitions have been filed by some of the Conductors seeking regularization of the service rendered by them as Casual Labour. WA.No.1320 of 2001 has been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge in WP.No.4521 of 2001 whereby the relief claimed therein, as in WP.No.12614 of 1998 and batch, was rejected. Since all these cases raise common questions of law and facts, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petitions. The petitioners, who are the Conductors of the Corporation, filed writ petitions for a Mandamus to direct the Corporation to regularize their services with effect from the date of their initial engagement as casual labour. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions except WP.No.4521 of 2001 following judgment dated 24.07.1995 of this Court in WA.No.705 of 1994. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present appeals are filed by the Corporation. As the issues are common, the pending writ petitions are tagged on to the writ appeals for hearing and disposal. At the hearing, Sri C. Appaiah Sharma, Sri K. Madhava Reddy and Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, submitted that in Regional Manager, APSRTC vs. N. Satyanarayana[1] the Supreme Court set aside the orders similar to the orders passed under appeals. The learned counsel further submitted that the Supreme Court held that this Court ought not to have entertained the writ petitions filed with substantial delay after regularization of the services of the employees and that therefore the writ petitions suffered from laches. Sri T.S. Venkataramana, Sri A. Rama Rao, Sri V. Narayana Reddy and Ms. B. Malleswari, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the Supreme Court in Divisional Manager, APSRTC and others vs. P. Lakshmoji Rao and others[2] while holding that this Court ought not to have directed regularization of the conductors, who were initially engaged as casual labour with effect from the date of their first engagement, however, took note of the fact that the Corporation failed to question the number of orders passed by this Court, as a result of which the services of several juniors were regularized, directed that if any of the conductors, juniors to the respondents therein in the relevant seniority 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 therein who are seniors to them, shall be given the same benefit on the same principle. On the basis of this direction given by the Apex Court in the said judgment, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are also entitled to the similar relief. We have carefully gone through the two judgments of the Supreme Court referred to above. It is no doubt true that in P. Lakshmoji Rao (2 supra), a direction was given that if the services of the juniors were regularized, the seniors should also be given the same benefit. However, in Regional Manager, APSRTC (1 supra) the Supreme Court has considered the effect of the judgment in P. Lakshmoji Rao (2 supra) and held that the ratio of the said judgment was to the effect that the workmen engaged as casual labour were not entitled to be given the benefit of regularization with effect from the date of their first engagement. It is apposite to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment hereunder: “It is to be noted that the ratio of the decision in the said case was to the following effect: (Divisional Manager, APSRTC case 1, SCC pp. 439 & 440-41, paras 11 & 16) "11. 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. 16. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the law laid down or the 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 the 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." Even on a bare reading of para 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 having been offered for the delayed approach, writ petition should have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.” On the above premises, the Supreme Court reversed the orders of this Court, which granted the relief following the judgment in P. Lakshmoji Rao (2 supra). It is not disputed that the petitioners in these cases are similarly situated to the persons, who were parties in Regional Manager, APSRTC (1 supra). Admittedly, all the writ petitioners approached this Court with delay varying between 10 and 12 years after their regularization. All the writ petitions thus suffered from laches and ought to have been dismissed on that ground. In view of the unexplained delay and following the judgment in Regional Manager, APSRTC (1 supra), the orders under appeals are set aside and all the writ appeals except WA.No.1320 of 2001 are allowed. In view of allowing of the writ appeals, no relief in WA.No.1320 of 2001 and the writ petitions can be granted in favour of the petitioners. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions in the manner indicated above, the respective miscellaneous applications pending in this batch of cases stand disposed of as infructuous. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 10.09.2009 ES [1] (2008) 1 SCC 210 [2] (2004) 2 SCC 433