THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.14783, 15466, 15827, 16355, 18116, 20101, 22691 and 28955 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners seek the relief in the form of a direction to the respondents to regularise their services, with effect from 10.10.1999. The brief facts that led to the filing of writ petition are as under: The Regional Manager, Hyderabad City Region, the 3rd respondent herein, issued a notification, dated 10.10.1999, inviting applications for 1046 posts of Drivers; 1073 posts of Conductors and 88 posts of Shramiks in Hyderabad City and Ranga Reddy Region. It was mentioned that the selected candidates would be appointed initially on daily wages, and thereafter, they would be absorbed, on being regularised. The petitioners submitted their applications and all of them were selected and appointed on daily wage basis, on being found fit. The regularisation of service of the daily wage employees needed approval of the Government, 1st respondent herein. Proposals were submitted by the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, the 2nd respondent herein, to the 1st respondent, for regularisation of as many as 3750 employees from different regions, including the Hyderabad city and Ranga Reddy region. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.285, Transport, Roads and Buildings (Tr.II) department, dated 05.10.2007, directing regularisation of such of the employees, who are recruited up to March, 1999 and continuing in service. 603 employees, however, were not extended the benefit, on account of the fact that they were facing disciplinary proceedings or were removed or terminated at the relevant point of time. The petitioners fall into that category. Therefore, the proposals were submitted thereafter by the 2nd respondent on 10.12.2008. The Government accorded permission through G.O.Ms.No.145, dated 01.07.2009. Based on the same, the Corporation issued office orders, directing that the services of the petitioners herein be regularised with effect from 01.07.2009. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the action of the respondents in regularising the services with effect from 01.07.2009, though they have been appointed in the year 1999. The petitioners contend that they are entitled to be regularised with effect from the date of initial appointment, on completion of 240 days of service. Reliance is placed upon certain precedents. Arguments on behalf of the petitioners were advanced by Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel. He contends that notification itself made it clear that the initial engagement of the petitioners would be on daily wage basis and that they would be absorbed into the service on being regularised. He submits that there was absolutely no basis for the respondents in not extending the relief similar to the one in G.O.Ms.No.285 dated 05.10.2007. Sri K.Madhava Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 8, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners constitute a different category and they cannot insist that their services be regularised in terms of G.O.Ms.No.285. He contends that no daily wage employee has a right to insist that his services be regularised. Quite large number of persons were employed as conductors, drivers or shramiks, in the year 1999, in pursuance of a notification issued for this purpose. The notification itself is made it clear that the selected candidates would be appointed on daily wage basis initially and their services would be regularised, in due course. For variety of reasons, the process of regularisation did not take place till the Government accorded approval and permission through G.O.Ms.No.285, dated 05.10.2007. Quite a large number of employees were regularised, in pursuance of the said orders. The cases of the petitioners were not considered in terms of G.O.Ms.No.285, nor did the petitioners feel any grievance at that time. Two years later, the Government accorded permission for regularisation of the services of the left over employees. Consequential orders, however, were issued directing regularisation with effect from 01.07.2010 i.e. the date of G.O. Once it is not in dispute that the petitioners are appointed initially in the year 1999, and their fellow employees were regularised in terms of G.O.Ms.No.285 dated 05.10.2007, there is no reason to deny them the benefit thereof. It was not on account of any fault or defect on the part of the petitioners, that they were not extended the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.285. Hence, the writ petitions are allowed. It is directed that the services of the petitioners shall be regularised with effect from the date on which the employees selected in pursuance of the notification dated 10.10.1999 were regularised, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.285, dated 05.10.2007. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners, however, shall not be entitled to any monetary benefit, on account of the change of date of regularisation. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:12.10.2011 GJ