IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17834 of 2000 Between: Kalakoti Nageswar, S/o. Narasiah, R/o. Brindavanam, Nellore. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 Reh Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Nellore. .....RESPONDENTS 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 issued an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner from the date of his original appointment i.e., 23- 4-1992 with consequential beneﬁts from the date of regularisation including diﬀerence of salary and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.SRINIVASA RAO CHAKRALA Counsel for the Respondents : C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 17834 of 2000 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus to direct the respondent-Corporation to regularize his services from the date of his initial appointment i.e. from 23rd April 1992, and to give all other consequential benefits. 2. It is evident from the pleadings that the petitioner was appointed as a casual Conductor on daily wage basis on 23rd April 1992, and he was attached to APSRTC, Nellore-I Depot. The service of the petitioner was regularized with eﬀect from 1st September 1995 and he was put on time scale of Rs.1645-55-2140-65- 2595-70-3155. After regular appointment, he has accepted the posting and while he was working as a regular Conductor, nearly after ﬁve years, this writ petition was ﬁled, seeking regularization from the date of initial appointment i.e. from 23rd April 1992. 3. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the respondents, it is averred that there was a practice in the APSRTC to appoint personnel on daily wage basis, by maintaining seniority. As and when regular vacancies arise, the same are being ﬁlled up as per seniority and by maintaining the roster. Though the petitioner was initially appointed as a Conductor on 23rd April 1992 on daily wage basis, but as per the availability of vacancy, his services were regularized with eﬀect from 01.09.1995. In the writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions for regularization from the date of his appointment i.e. from 23rd April 1992, on the ground that he was a sponsored candidate from employment exchange and his appointment was made by following the regular procedure. The very appointment order issued to the petitioner shows that he was appointed on daily wage basis, but not as a regular Conductor. When such a practice is there in the Corporation to appoint personnel on daily wage basis and thereafter to regularize them as per seniority as and when regular vacancies arise, the same cannot be faulted with. It appears that such a practice is being followed to save time in the process of selections and to ﬁll up the vacancies as and when they arise. The averment made in the counter to the eﬀect that the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis, is not controverted by the petitioner by ﬁling any reply affidavit. 4. This writ petition is to be dismissed for more than one reason. The petitioner was appointed on 23rd April 1992 only on casual basis, and though his service was regularized by extending the beneﬁt of time scale with eﬀect from 01.09.1995, nearly ﬁve years thereafter, this writ petition is ﬁled. There is no explanation for this unexplained delay and latches on the part of the petitioner. Moreover, the dispute with regard to the date of regularization in such circumstances, is no more a res integra in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The Regional Manager, APSRTC v. N.Satyanarayana[1], wherein the similar issue has been considered by the Apex Court and it was held that regularization need not be from the date of initial appointment. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 29th October 2008 ajr [1] 2007 (13) SCALE 12