THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.28880 of 1998 Date: 23-08-2007 Between: O.M.Prasad Petitioner And The Managing Director, APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.28880 of 1998 ORDER: 1. This present writ petition has been instituted seeking directions to the respondents to regularize the services of the writ petitioner as a Conductor grade-II with effect from 7th June,1990 instead of 12-06-1991 as ordered through the office order dated 29-01-1997 of the Depot Manager, Nellore-I. 2. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner has been engaged initially by the APSRTC as a Conductor on daily wages on 07-06-1990 and he continued to render services on such casual/daily wage basis ever since. However, the issue relating to regularization of such large contingent daily wage/casual employees employed in the APSRTC was the subject matter of debate before this Court in W.P.No.8041 of 1990 which was decided on 16-04-1994. In the said case, a direction was issued by a learned Single Judge of this Court to regularize the services of the daily wage/casual employees like the present writ petitioner with effect from the date of their initial appointment. Aggrieved by the judgment rendered by the Single Judge in W.P.No.8041 of 1990, the officials of the APSRTC carried the matter in W.A.No.705 of 1995. A Division Bench of this Court had clarified the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8041 of 1990. It would be profitable to quote what the Division Bench had said “We accordingly clarify that the date of initial appointment as indicated in the order of the learned single judge will be read as the date of continuous appointment as defined under Section 25 B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Such continuous service of the petitioners-respondents shall be counted for all benefits in the service in accordance with law.” 3. In terms of this clarificatory order passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.705 of 1995, the Depot Manager of the APSRTC, Nellore-I, had calculated the 240 days of service put in by the petitioner from the date of his initial engagement on daily wage basis/casual basis and came to the conclusion that he had completed 240 days of service by 11th June,1991. Therefore, through the impugned orders dated 29-01-1997, he had decasualised and appointed the writ petitioner in terms of Regulation 17 of the APSRTC Recruitment Regulations duly appointing the petitioner as Conductor grade-II with effect from 12-06-1991, the date next to the date on which he had put in continuous service of 240 days. Therefore, the action of the Depot Manager, Nellore-I in seeking to regularize the service of the writ petitioner with effect from 12-06-1991 is in fact in conformity with the clarificatory orders passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No. 705 of 1995 as well as the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.23041 of 1996 to which the writ petitioner is a party (1st petitioner). 4. However, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner strenuously submits that when once the writ petitioner is treated or deemed to have completed 240 working days, he becomes entitled to be regularized and while so regularizing the services have got to be computed/ counted from the date of his initial appointment but not from the date next to that of the continuous service determined duly reckoning the principle enshrined under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. Sri R.Manmadha Reddy, the learned standing counsel for the APSRTC, had brought to my notice that a similar question had fallen for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.997 of 1999. The Division Bench of this Court through it’s judgment dated 28-03-2006 held that the daily wage employees/ casual employees are not entitled to seek regularization from the date of their initial appointment and any such claim is not justified. The Division Bench of this Court had drawn inspiration from the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Divisional Manager, APSRTC and others Vs. P.Lakshmoji Rao[1]. The learned standing counsel therefore submits that the claim made by the present petitioner to have the services regularized with effect from 07-06-1990, the initial date of his engagement on daily wage/casual basis, is untenable. 6. I find considerable force in the submissions made by the learned standing counsel for the APSRTC. Apart from noticing that the order passed on 29-01-1997 by the Depot Manager, Nellore- I in regularly appointing the writ petitioner (regularizing his service) as a Conductor grade-II with effect from 12-06-1991 is not only a faithful compliance with the clarificatory orders passed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.705 of 1995 as well as W.P.No.23041 of 1996, but is also based upon a rational approach, in that, unless an employee puts in considerable length of service continuously thus showing his usefulness to the organization he will not be earning any right whatsoever to seek regularization of his services. It is one thing to say that in spite of successfully coming out of the process of selection, if a candidate is appointed on a temporary basis, upon completion of certain period, be it a period of probation or otherwise, in seeking regularization of his services from date of his initial engagement, it would be altogether a different matter for candidates who are engaged on daily wage/casual basis to seek such a right of regularization of their services. In the latter cases, unless some recognizable right is earned by them, the obligation to regularize their services cannot be fastened on to the employer. This is the reason why the Division Bench in it’s clarificatory order in W.A.No.705 of 1995 has directed the date to be counted with reference to the principle enunciated under Section 25 B of the Industrial Disputes Act. 7. For these reasons, I do not find any merit in the above writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed, but however without costs. _________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 23-08-2007 Stp [1] 2004 (3) ALD 1 (SC)