IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 1138 of 1999 Between: A. Ramoji, E. 361628, Driver, S/o. Vatsyn, R/o. Goddamanugu Village, G. Konduru Mandalam, Krishna Dist. Date of appointment 12-1-1993. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by The Managing Director, APSRTC Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC., Vijayawada, Krishna Dist. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC., Tiruvuru, Tiruvur Depot., Kirshna Dist. .....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 pleased to issue a writ order of direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamous declaring the impugned action of the respondents in not regularising my services on completion of 240days as arbitrary, unjust and violation of Art, 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No. 3 to regularise my services on completion of 240 days from the date i.e. 12-1-93 initial appointment along with consequential benefits and to pay the arrears of the wages forth with in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER : The petitioner is initially appointed on 19.1.1993 as driver, but, however, the services have been regularized with effect from 1.8.1997 i.e., more than after four years. The petitioner now seeks directions to the respondents to regularize the services with effect from the date of his initial appointment i.e., from 19.1.1993 and in support of his claim he placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court dated 10.2.1998 reported in 1998(2) ALT 447 (DB) as well as the judgment rendered in Writ Appeal No. 705 of 1995. It will be relevant to point out that questioning the correctness of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in the aforementioned cases the APSRTC has carried the matter in Civil Apepal No. 5158 of 2007 and the Supreme Court had concluded the entire issue in this regard by its judgment dated 12.11.2007, the operative portion of which is to the following effect : “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 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.” In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the subject, disapproving the basis upon which the judgments are rendered by the Division Benches of this Court, I consider it appropriate to dismiss the present writ petition as the petitioner cannot insist upon the APSRTC to regularize his services from the date of his initial appointment. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, but, however, without costs. -------------------------------------- N.RAMAMOHANA RAO,J Dt : 29.2.2008 knk ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RAGHU}