THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No.387 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation ﬁled this appeal challenging the correctness of the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in allowing Writ Petition No.27562 of 1998 ﬁled by the respondent-writ petitioner for regularizing his services with eﬀect from his initial appointment extending all the beneﬁts ﬂowing from such regularization following the earlier judgment of this Court in W.P.No.24417 of 1998, dated 1.9.1998, reported in 1998 (2) A.L.T. 447. Facts which gave rise to this appeal, which are not in dispute are as under: The respondent-Writ Petitioner was appointed as a Conductor pursuant to the notiﬁcation on daily wage basis with eﬀect from 14.3.1984 and subsequently his appointment was converted as contract basis with eﬀect from 23.3.1984. His services were discontinued for the period from 10.12.1984 to 11.9.1985 and again his services were converted as daily wages Conductor with effect from 11.9.1985. His services were regularized with eﬀect from 27.10.1986. Later, inspired by the orders obtained by some of the Conductors for regularization from the date of initial appointment, he ﬁled W.P.No.28609 of 1997 seeking regularization of his services from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 14.3.1984 for the purpose of increments and other beneﬁts, as was done in case of one Mr.Khaleemuddin. The said writ petition was disposed of by learned single judge of this Court with a direction to the appellant-Management to consider the case of the respondent herein and pass appropriate orders. The appellant-Management, by an order dated 31.1.1998 vide proceedings No.LC/876 (97)/97-RM:ADB, rejected the claim of the respondent holding that he has not put in uninterrupted continuous contract period of time scale service from 14.3.1984 and whereas, the said Khaleemuddin, Conductor of Nirmal Depot has been allowed with increments only for the period from 4.4.1984 to 27.8.1985 since he has put in uninterrupted contract time scale and also stipulated the contract period allowed for increments does not count for decasualisation, vide oﬃce order dated 30.8.1996. Whereas, the respondent was appointed on daily wage basis with eﬀect from 14.3.1984 and on contract basis in the time scale from 23.3.1984 was terminated with eﬀect from 10.12.1984 and as per the Court orders, he has been reengaged on daily wage basis with eﬀect from 12.9.1985 and continued on daily wage basis till 26.10.1986 as he was decasualised on regular basis with eﬀect from 27.10.1986, from which date, he is entitled for regularization. Questioning the correctness of the same, the respondent ﬁled the above writ petition, which was allowed by the learned single judge by order dated 16.8.1999. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is ﬁled by the appellant- Management. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the counsel for respondent-writ petitioner. The respondent-writ petitioner claims regularization of his services from the date of his initial appointment as was done in the case of Khaleemuddin. But, it is not disputed that the case of the respondent-writ petitioner is not similar to that of Khaleemuddin. Further, the services of respondent-writ petitioner were regularized with eﬀect from 27.10.1986 by an order passed in the year 1986 itself. The respondent has not chosen to challenge the order of his regularization with the said date nor claimed that he is entitled to regularization from the date of initial appointment immediately on passing the orders regularizing his services with eﬀect from 27.10.1986. Only on coming to know that some of the employees have obtained orders for regularization of their services from the date of initial appointment, the respondent ﬁled Writ Petition No.28609 of 1997 nearly after 11 years and obtained a direction for considering his case, as was done in the case of Khaleemuddin. The appellant-Management by a reasoned order, as referred to above, rejected the claim of the respondent holding that his claim is not similar to that of Khaleemuddin, as there was no brake in the services rendered by said Khaleemuddin, whereas, admittedly, the respondent’s services were disengaged, as mentioned above. The Apex Court in the case of Regional Manager, APSRTC v. N.Satyanarayana & Others ((2008) 1 SCC 433), in similar circumstances, set aside the order passed by this Court ordering regularization from the date of initial appointment. The facts therein squarely covers to the case on hand. In view of the same, the order passed by the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition for regularization from the date of initial appointment following the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.24417 of 1998, dated 1.9.1998, suﬀers from incurable inﬁrmities and the same is not sustainable and the respondent-Writ Petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed in the writ petition on par with Khaleemuddin. We accordingly allow the Writ Appeal and dismiss the Writ Petition. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ______________________ 05th SEPTEMBER, 2008 VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. Tsr.