IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16795 of 1999 Between: M. V. Rao, E. 454895, Conductor, S/o. Ramachander Rao, R/o. Visakhapatnam,Visakhapatnam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Visakhapatnam, 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Viskhapatnam - I Depot, Visakhapatnam. .....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 pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents in not regularising my services from the date i.e. 10-2-1988 of my initial appointment as arbitrary, unjust and violation of Art. 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the 3rd respondent to regularise my services from the date of my initial appointment with notional seniority along with consequential benefits and to pay the arrears of the wages forthwith in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.M.SUBHAN Counsel for the Respondents: K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16795 of 1999 ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the petitioner, who is working as a Conductor in the Visakhapatnam Depot of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, seeks a direction by way of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing his services from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 10.02.1988, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The petitioner was displaced employee of a private bus service, on account of nationalization of routes. In a beneficial scheme introduced by the APSRTC to consider the claims of such displaced employees on account of nationalization, the petitioner was initially appointed into the service of the Corporation on casual basis from 10.02.1988, but his services were decasualised from 01.03.1989. The petitioner claims regularization retrospectively from 10.02.1988, mainly on the ground that the services of several similarly situated persons were regularized. 3. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit denying the averments of the petitioner. Moreover, it is not in dispute that the earlier appointment of the petitioner was on casual basis and he was absorbed into regular service only with effect from 01.03.1989. Though his services were decasualised with effect from 01.03.1989, nearly after a lapse of about 10 years, this Writ Petition was filed seeking regularization retrospectively from 10.02.1988. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that as per the seniority list, 13 other persons, who were displaced on account of nationalization and were absorbed into the service of the Corporation, were similarly treated and that they were given the benefit of regularization only after decasualisation, but not earlier. 5. The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to be rejected for more than one reason. Firstly it is to be seen, the initial appointment of the petitioner is on casual basis and when he is not appointed in the permanent vacancy, he is not entitled to seek any regularization retrospectively from 10.02.1988. Secondly, when the services of the petitioner were decasualised on 01.03.1989, there is also no reason for his approaching this Court nearly after a lapse of 10 years, seeking the present relief. There is no valid explanation to such abnormal delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. 6. For the above said reasons, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J Dt.18.11.2008 GJ