THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.A. No. 1209 of 2000 JUDGMENT (per Ramesh Ranganathan J) : Aggrieved by the orders passed in WP No. 25558 of 1999 dt. 19-6-2000 whereby the appellants herein were directed to regularize the services of the respondent-workman in the cadre of Driver-Grade II with effect from the date which he completed 240 days of continuous service, within a period of two months, the A P S R T C preferred this appeal. Smt. B G Uma Devi learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Corporation would rely on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Divisional Manager and others vs., P Lakshmoji Rao and others[1] and contend that an employee who has completed 240 days of service would necessitate his services would be regularized from the date of his initial appointment has been specifically repelled by the Supreme Court and that the Supreme Court has directed the Corporation to regularize the employees at least from the date that the juniors were regularized in the services. Learned counsel would submit that on mere fact that an employee has completed 240 days of service would not entitle him for the benefit of regularization and at best, is entitled, on completion of 240 days of service, for protection of Section 25 of Industrial Disputes Act Sri Narasimha Goud, learned counsel for the respondent- work man, on the other hand, would contend that while the respondent workman had indeed sought for regularization of his services from the date of his initial appointment. Before the learned Single Judge the contention of the petitioner was that his services should be regularized on completion of 240 days of service from the date of his initial appointment. Learned counsel would refer to the proceedings dated 29-5-1996 to contend that while the respondent-work man was shown at sl.No.2, and two other employees at sl. No.4 and 6 respectively (Saranamaiah and M B Reddy) who were juniors to him and since their services were regularized after completion of 240 days, his services are ought to be regularized after completion of 240 days on par with them. Learned counsel while fairly accepting the proposition that mere completion of 240 days of service would not entitle for employment. None the less, where a scheme of regularization is in force, an employee is entitled to have his services regularized in accordance with the scheme and since the scheme is in force in APSRTC, specifically provides for regularization of services from the date of completion of 240 days of service from the date of initial appointment, services of the respondent-workman ought to be regularized from the date of completion of 240 days of his initial appointment. At the outset, it is required to be noted that no scheme of regularization has been placed before us, which specifically stipulates that an employee would be entitled for regularization of his services on completion of 240 days of service from the date of his initial appointment. It is well settled principle of law as held by the Supreme Court in MADHYAMIK SIKSHA PARISHAD, U.P. APPELLANT v., ANIL KUMAR MISHRA AND OTHERS ETC., RESPONDENTS[2] that completion of 240 days’ work does not, under that law import the right to regularization. It merely imposes certain obligations on the employer at the time of termination of the service. In P Lakshmoji Rao’s case, the Supreme Court specifically repelled the contention that an employee selected on daily-wage basis after selection automatically become regular employee from day one and is entitled to regularization on completion of 240 days of service from his initial appointment and specifically over ruled the law laid down by the Division Bench of this High Court in WP No. 8070 of 1990 dated.24.7.1995. Learned Counsel Mr Narasimha Goud would emphatically contend that the Office Order dated 21-5-1991 shows that some of the juniors of the respondent herein i.e., Saranamaiah and M B Reddy are juniors to the respondent workman. The order per se does not specifically reflect as to whether or not Saranamaiah or M B Reddy are juniors to the respondent-workman etc., and those the matters to be considered by the respondent-Corporation. While taking into consideration the observations made in the case of P Lakshmoji Rao, we modify the order of the learned Single Judge and direct the appellant-Corporation to consider the case of the respondent-workman herein for regularization of his services w.e.f. the date his juniors were regularized. In the result, the writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. _____________________ T MEENA KUMARI J ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN J kvrk THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE T MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.A. No. 1209 of 2000 25TH June 2008 [1] 2004 (3) ALD 1 (SC) [2] AIR 1994 SC 1638