THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 27349 of 2003 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring that the petitioners are entitled to be continued in service as per the judgment of this Court, which ultimately merged in the decision of the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 239 of 2000 dated 2.3.2001. It appears, petitioners were treated as contract labour by the APSRTC. They were all working in various capacities in the Zonal Workshop at Karimnagar since 1.1.1996. While that being so, their services were treated as if they were appointed on contract basis. Under those circumstances, they filed W.P. No. 13308 of 1997 seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent-management as arbitrary and illegal; consequently, to direct the respondents to treat the petitioners as regular employees right from the date of their initial appointment. The said writ petition was disposed of on 26.8.1999. A learned Single Judge of this Court gave a finding that the category of employment in which the petitioners are being engaged was an abolished category, therefore, they must be treated as employees of APSRTC and directed the management as under: “In the result, the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners in the post for which they were engaged for carrying out the work as a contract labour, however, subject to the fulfillment of other requirements. With reference to the petitioners 7 and 10 where it was stated that their names were not there in the list supplied by the contractor, the respondents are directed to consider their cases subject to the satisfaction by the petitioners that their names were there in the original list supplied by the contractor. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs”. Aggrieved thereby, respondent-management filed W.A. No. 1503 of 1999. The said writ appeal was dismissed confirming the order passed by the learned single Judge, which reads as under: “Contract Labour system stood abolished in view of the G.O.Ms.No.492 dated 16.10.1980, the applicability of which in respect of the Corporation is not in dispute. Similarly, applicability of G.O.Ms.No.287 dated 7.5.1981 was never even contested before the learned single Judge which is again a question of fact raised for the first time in the appeal and the appellant cannot be permitted to make out any new case at the appellate stage. The contention that prohibition is only with respect to employment of contract labour whose number is more than 20 cannot be accepted in view of the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.492 dated 16.10.1980 which has been issued extending the operation of the prohibition in case of specified categories of work including sweeping and scavenging where the number of contract labour engaged is less than 20. In view of the observations made above, we find no error in the order passed by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs”. Aggrieved thereby, the management further carried the matter in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 239 of 2000 before the apex Court. The apex Court, by an order dated 5.5.2000, disposed of the matter as under: “Service is complete but nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. In addition to the interim order passed earlier it is further provided that though the respondents shall be continued in service, their services shall not be regularized in terms of the direction of the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of”. However, since the petitioners were not heard, they filed I.A. 1 of 2000 in the said Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 239 of 2000. The said I.A. was disposed of on 2.3.2001 with the following directions: “Application is allowed. The order dated 5.5.2000 is recalled. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we, direct that the respondents shall be continued in service and the question of their regularization will be decided in accordance with the rules. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of”. However, thereafter, a review petition was filed by the Management in Review Petition (Civil) No. 856 of 2001 in I.A. 1 of 2000 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 239 of 2000 and the said review petition was disposed of on 18.1.2002 as under: “After hearing the counsel for the parties, inasmuch as an error was committed as the Court did not take into account the fact that the respondents were not in service when the order dated 2nd March, 2001 was passed, even though there was no error on the part of the respondents and the order of 2nd March, 2001 was passed on the basis that the respondents were in service which was factually incorrect, the order dated 2nd March, 2001 is recalled. The effect of this would be that the earlier order dated 5th May, 2000 gets revived. The review petition is disposed of”. Thus, the order passed on 5.5.2000 by the apex Court got revived. Now, it is the case of the petitioners that in spite of there being such an order, petitioners were not continued. Though during pendency of the S.L.P., the services of the petitioners were dispensed with, after disposal of the S.L.P., they were reinstated into service on 4.2.2003 and the petitioners are continued as such till date. In the meanwhile, petitioners also filed an amendment petition to amend the prayer of the writ petition, seeking further relief of regularization. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that all the above facts would reveal that the petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services and the action of respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners is arbitrary and illegal. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Sri P. Sreedhar Reddy strenuously contended that the petitioners are not entitled for regularization in view of the order passed by the apex Court. They are at the most entitled to be continued in service since the order dated 5.5.2000 was got revived. He further stated that though the petitioners are entitled to be continued in service, they are not entitled for regularization in view of the orders passed by the Supreme Court. I am afraid I may not be able to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents. The purport of the order of the Supreme Court is that they are not automatically entitled for regularization but, it does not mean that they are not entitled for regularization even if vacancies are available and they are continued for reasonably long period. All the above orders would indicate that the petitioners are not automatically entitled for regularization as per the orders of this Court in W.P. No. 131308 of 1997, which was confirmed in the writ appeal, but that does not mean that the petitioners are not entitled for regularization thereafter as per the service rules of APSRTC in view of the service put in by them after reinstatement on 4.2.2003. By now petitioners would have put in more than eight years of service and admittedly they have been working as employees of the APSRTC though at one point of time it was claimed that they were contract employees, which was not accepted in the earlier round of litigation which went up to Supreme Court. Therefore, respondents are bound to consider regularisation of services of the petitioners in the respondent-Corporation. Now it is more than 18 years that they have been since working in their respective posts. Therefore, respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularization of their services in the APSRTC as per the service conditions governing them. This exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 09-02-2011. MVB.