IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No: 5408 of 2000 BETWEEN: G. Sudershan S/o Narsaiah, R/o H.No.18-123, Bombay Colony, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Divisional Manager, Medak Division, A.P.S.R.T.C, Medak District. 3 The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Zaheerabad, Medak 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 may be pleased to issue a Writ, or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing my service as per the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court in WA No.705/95 dated 24-7-1995 and without following the provisions of Section 25 (B) of I.D. Act 1947 as arbitrary, illegal, and consequently direct the respondent to regularize my service from the date of may initial appointment and to release all the consequential benefits that flow from such regularisation, and pass such any other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.H.R.CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner, driver in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, seeks a direction to the respondents by way of Writ of Mandamus in not regularizing his services from the date of his initial appointment in the light of the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.705 of 1995 dated 24.07.1995 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Though the petitioner claims that he has been appointed on regular basis in the year 1993, the counter affidavit goes to show that the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis initially on 12.01.1993 and disengaged on 15.07.1994. Again the petitioner was reengaged on 11.07.1995 and continued to work up to 31.07.1997 and his services were regularized 31.07.1997. 3. The petitioner seeks regularization of his services retrospectively from the date of his initial appointment based on the aforesaid judgment of this Court. However, subsequently the Supreme Court rendered judgments on the subject matter in DIVISIONAL MANAGER AND OTHERS v. P. LAKSHMOJI RAO AND OTHERS [1] a n d REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC v. N. SATYANARAYANA AND OTHERS [2] wherein the Supreme Court has approved of the regularizations made much later after the appointment but not from the date of initial engagement. Even in the present case also it is the case of the respondents that the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wage basis and later his services were regularized on the basis of circular instruction on the norms of 2.6 per schedule. In the counter affidavit it is clearly stated that though the petitioner completed 240 days as on 30.06.1996, as there were no existing vacancies at that point of time his services were not regularized. It is only after the schedules were increased in the year 1997 and vacancies arose, the services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from 31.07.1997. 4. It is also to be noticed that the services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from 31.07.1997 and this writ petition has been filed belatedly in the year 2000 seeking regularization from the date of initial appointment. As much as the initial appointment was on daily wage basis there is no basis for the claim of the petitioner to seek regularization from the date of initial appointment. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J January 27, 2009 DSK [1] (2004) 2 SCC 433 [2] (2008) 1 SCC 210