IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.18658 of 1999 Between: T.S.Singh and ten others. … Petitioners And The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Bhagyanagar (City) Region, JBS Picket, Secunderabad. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Sri A.Thirupathi Reddy. Counsel for the respondents: Sri K.Madhava Reddy. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent in not regularizing the services of the petitioners from the dates of their initial appointment as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioners also sought for a consequential direction to the respondent to regularize their services from the dates of their initial appointment with all consequential benefits. The petitioners were engaged as conductors, on daily wage basis, on different dates in the year 1992. Their services were regularized with effect from 1-4- 1993 in respect of some of the petitioners and from 1-3- 1994 in respect of others. Their grievance is that the temporary service rendered by them prior to their regularization is not taken into consideration for the purpose of seniority and further promotion. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent it is, inter alia, stated that in pursuance of the settlement entered into under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with the recognized Union, casual crew was agreed to be regularized in a phased manner depending upon the periods during which they were engaged. With regard to the persons who were engaged upto 31-12-1992, including the petitioners, the outer limit for their regularization was 31- 7-1996 and that the services of the petitioners were regularized much prior to the said date in the year 1993- 94 itself. The respondent further stated that no understanding was reached with the Union that while regularizing their services, the temporary period of service put in by the employees will be taken into consideration. At the hearing, Sri A.Thirupathi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that in respect of some persons, who were appointed under the deceased quota, their temporary service was taken into consideration. The learned counsel referred to para 5 of the averments contained in the affidavit in support of this contention. A perusal of the said averments shows that no details have been given as to the persons whose temporary service was allegedly considered for regularization. The law is well crystallized by the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi – (2006) 4 SCC 1 – and further reiterated by a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in its recent judgment in Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and others – (2008) 10 SCC 1 – that a casual labourer or a temporary employee, who has not entered service through regular process, has no right for regularization or for reckoning the temporary service rendered by him by virtue of his unauthorized entry into temporary employment. The petitioners, therefore, failed to make out any case of violation of any statutory provision or their vested right in law warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:22-12-2008 MNR