IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No : 22819 of 2000 Between: 1 P.Nageswara Rao S/oChinnappadu, E.No.108163 Chirala Depot Chirala, Prakasam District 2 N.Koteswara RAo S/oVenkateswarlu, E.No.107201 Podili Depot Podili, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by VC&MD, Musheerabad Hyderabad 2 A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep. by Regional Manager, Ongole Region Prakasam 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 will be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus; or any appropriate order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd Respondent herein to regularise the service of the Petitioners from the date of their initial appointment and pay arrears and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems ﬁt in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners :MR.P.GOVINDA RAJULU 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 : 22819 of 2000 ORDER : This writ petition is ﬁled seeking directions against the 2nd respondent to regularize the services of petitioners from the dates of their initial appointment. 2. Petitioners 1 and 2 were appointed as Conductors in the respondent-Corporation, on daily wage basis, on 22.05.1985 and 25.06.1985 respectively. It is their case that their services were regularized with eﬀect from 01.08.1986 instead of regularizing from the dates of their initial appointment. It is also the case of the petitioners that though the services of the similarly situated employees were regularized from the date of their initial appointment, their services were regularized only from 01.08.1986. They contend that inspite of availability of regular vacancies in the Corporation, they were not being absorbed into such vacancies, and therefore, they seek directions against the respondents to regularize their services with eﬀect from the dates of their initial appointment. 3. Counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of the respondents, stating that regularization in the services of respondent-Corporation would be made as per seniority in the roster and also basing on the availability of sanctioned vacancies from time to time. It is categorically stated that the services of petitioners were regularized as per the availability of vacancies. It is also pleaded in the counter aﬃdavit that since the petitioners have ﬁled this writ petition after 14 years of their regularization, they are not entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petition, and that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on account of this unexplained delay and latches on the part of the petitioners. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent- Corporation. 5. It is not in dispute that petitioners 1 and 2 were appointed in the respondent-Corporation on 22.05.1985 and 25.06.1985 respectively, on daily wage basis, and their services were regularized with eﬀect from 01.08.1986. It is also clear that the petitioners were absorbed into regular vacancies, pursuant to the selections made earlier, as and when such vacancies arose. It is to be noticed that though their services were regularized with eﬀect from 01.08.1986, the petitioners have ﬁled this writ petition only in the year 2000 i.e. after lapse of 14 long years, which is not permissible. In this connection, reference can be made to a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Regional Manager, APSRTC v. N.Satyanarayana & others[1], wherein the Apex Court, while reversing an order passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No.874 of 2005, has rejected such claim. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, and also in view of the unexplained delay of 14 years and latches on the part of the petitioners, they are not entitled for the relief sought for in this writ petition. 7. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 17th September 2008 cvrk/ajr [1] 2007 AIR SCW 7137