A.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors vs G. Srinivas Reddy & Ors

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, first appellant, (for short 'the Corporation'), issued a Circular dated 1.9.1988 containing the guidelines for absorption of persons employed on casual basis/consolidated pay/piecemeal rate/work charged establishment, whose services had been ordered to be dispensed with, under an earlier Circular dated 2.7.1987. The said guidelines provided, inter alia, that such absorption shall be only against sanctioned vacancies, and that the benefit was to be extended only to those who had been engaged for more than one year. The Circular made it clear that benefit thereof will not extend to persons engaged by its contractors at Bus Stations and certain other categories of persons detailed therein.

2. The respondents herein filed W.P. No.14353/1991 claiming to be scavengers employed by the Corporation, seeking a direction for regularisation. That petition was disposed of by order 5.11.1991 with a direction to consider their cases in terms of the Circular dated 1.9.1988 and pass appropriate orders. The High Court did not examine the claim on merits.

3. To give effect to the said order, the Divisional Manager of the Adilabad Division of the Corporation sent a communication dated 14.7.1992 instructing the Depot Manager, Mancherial to verify the claims of the respondents (as they had claimed that they were working in the said Depot) and to send him the necessary information in the prescribed proforma. Alleging inaction thereafter, the respondents herein again approached the High Court in W.P. No.30220/1997 for a declaration that the Corporation's failure to take action in pursuance of the said letter dated 14.7.1992 was illegal and praying for a direction to the Corporation to absorb them into its service.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents approached the High Court for the third time, by filing W.P. No.17678 of 1999 for quashing the said order dated 21.4.1999 and seeking a direction to the Corporation to treat them as ex-casual employees and absorb them under the terms of the Circular dated 1.9.1988. A learned Single Judge by order dated 23.8.1999 disposed of the said petition at the admission stage, quashing the said order dated 21.4.1999 and directing the Corporation to pass a fresh order on the representation of the respondents herein. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the respondents herein could not be denied relief on the ground that they were employed as contract labour, as such a contention was not taken by the Corporation in the earlier petition (W.P. No.30220/1997). The learned Single Judge held that when the direction in W.P. No.30220/1997 was to 'consider' the case for absorption in terms of the guidelines contained in Circular dated 14.7.1992, the Corporation could not reject the claim by taking a stand that respondents were employed as contract labour and the Circular dated 1.9.1988 was inapplicable.

14. Therefore, while disposing of writ petitions with a direction to 'consider', there is a need for the High Court to make the direction clear and specific. The order should clearly indicate whether the High Court is recording any finding about the entitlement of the petitioner to the relief or whether the petition is being disposed of without examining the claim on merits. The court should also normally fix a time-frame for consideration and decision. If no time-frame is fixed and if the authority does not decide the matter, the direction of the court becomes virtually infructuous as the aggrieved petitioner will have to come again to court with a fresh writ petition or file an application for fixing time for deciding the matter.

15. In this case, the respondents approached the High Court seeking a direction for regularization/absorption in the year 1991. That petition (WP No.14353/1991) was disposed of, apparently, at the admission stage by order dated 5.11.1991, with a direction to 'consider' the representations of Respondents without examining the question whether the petitioners in the writ petition were entitled to the relief of regularization/absorption and without fixing any time frame for deciding the matter. Though the Divisional Manager, Adilabad, by letter dated 14.7.1992 sought information and verification of claims by the concerned depots, with the intention of giving effect to the order dated 5.11.1991, no further action was taken. This led to filing of the second petition (W.P. No.30220/1997) wherein the respondents herein sought a direction to the concerned authority to take a decision on the question of absorption. The second petition was also disposed of at the preliminary hearing stage by order dated 17.3.1998, without examining the claim of respondents on merits. The said order dated 17.3.1998 proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the letter dated 14.7.1992 (by which the Divisional Manager, Adilabad, sought information from the concerned Depot Managers about the respondents herein) was the Circular containing the guidelines for absorption, and disposed of Writ Petition No. 30220/1997 by directing the authority concerned to consider the cases of the respondents herein for absorption in terms of the guidelines contained in the letter dated 14.7.1992 and decide the matter within three months.

17. For the reasons stated above, we allow this appeal, set aside the order dated 30.9.1999 passed by the Division Bench of the A.P. High Court in Writ Appeal No.1422 of 1999 and dismiss Writ Petition No.17678/1999 filed by the respondents. Liberty is, however, reserved to the respondents to approach the Industrial Tribunal/Court for relief, if any, in accordance with law. Parties to bear their respective costs.