M. Baswaraj vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in not regularising the petitioners’ services with effect from 01.01.2001 but regularising only with effect from 05.10.2007 is bad, arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners with effect from 01.01.2001 on par with their batch mates who were appointed under the same Notification and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the petitioners numbering 9 were appointed as daily wage Conductors in APSRTC in Medak Region pursuant to a Notification in 1998-99 issued by the 2nd respondent herein. These appointments were allegedly made after medical test and training. It is stated that the petitioners are working in APSRTC Bus Depot, Medak Region till the date of filing of the Writ Petition. It is stated that the 2nd respondent regularised their services with effect from 05.10.2007 vide order dt.15.10.2007. However, some of their batch mates who were appointed under the same Notification were regularised with effect from 01.01.2001 vide Office Order No.P3/255(1)/2007-RM:MR dt.10.04.2001. In view of the regularisation of their services with effect from 05.10.2007 and not from 01.01.2001 on par with their colleagues/batch mates, the petitioners filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.21415 of 2010 and the same was disposed of directing the petitioners to file a representation before the respondents and that the respondents are directed to pass orders thereon within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the representation. Vide letter dt.10.09.2014, the petitioners made detailed representation, but however, no orders were passed by the respondents and therefore, the petitioners were constrained to file Contempt Case No.1016 of 2014 and after this Court issued notice to the respondents in the said Contempt Case, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dt.10.09.2014 rejecting the petitioners’ claim. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. Venkateswar Rao, is claiming parity with the batch mates of the petitioners or similarly placed persons who were also appointed under the same Notification and who have been regularised with effect from 01.01.2001. He placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court i.e. the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the cases of (1) T. Damodhar Rao and others Vs. Managing Director, APSRTC, Hyderabad and others 1999 (2) ALD 587 and (2) Kodali Raju and others Vs. APSRTC, Hyderabad and others 2011 (1) ALD 234 in support of the above contentions.

Learned Standing Counsel, Sri N. Praveen Reddy, on the other hand, relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to claim it as a right to regularise their services from the date of their initial appointment as there were no sanctioned vacancies at the relevant point of time. He placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a person appointed on daily wage basis has no right to claim regularisation from the date of initial appointment and regularisation has to be made from the date of arising of sanctioned vacancy. It is submitted that during the year 1998, recruitment was conducted to the posts of Conductors on casual basis and around 192 candidates were engaged on daily wage basis and the petitioners herein are also amongst those candidates. It is submitted that of these 192 candidates, 77 candidates were regularised in 3 spells as per their seniority and none of the juniors of the petitioners have got the benefit of regularisation ahead of the petitioners. It is also submitted that the petitioners have been regularised as and when vacancies have arisen. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, the undisputed fact is that a daily wage or casual employee cannot be regularised immediately after completion of 240 days as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3 supra). It is subject to fulfilment of other conditions, such as availability of regular vacancy. As contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, total 192 candidates were taken on daily wage basis in the year 1998 and after completion of 240 days and as and when regular vacancies arose, some of the employees have been regularised and therefore, as per their seniority, the petitioners were regularised in the year 2007.

Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to give any direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners herein also with effect from 01.01.2001.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not claiming arrears of salary from 01.01.2001, but they would be satisfied if notional increments are granted from 1.01.2001 and the monetary benefits are awarded only from the date of order of this Court.

This Court is not inclined to give any such direction at this stage. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to make a representation to the respondents and the respondents, if such representation is made, may consider and dispose of the same by way of a speaking order within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of such representation.

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.