Holding

The writ petition is barred by delay and laches and must be dismissed.

Summary

The respondents were appointed as conductors on a daily‑wage basis and were later regularized on 1 August 1987. In 1999 they filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking regularization retroactive to their initial appointment date, without explaining the long delay. The High Court allowed the petition, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Divisional Manager, APSRTC v. P. Lakshmoji Rao. The Supreme Court held that the High Court misread that decision and that the petition was barred by delay and laches, as the regularization had already occurred over a decade earlier. Consequently, the Court vacated the High Court’s orders and dismissed the writ petition. The appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition filed after a long lapse of time seeking regularization from the date of initial appointment is barred by delay and laches.
Whether the High Court correctly applied the ratio of Divisional Manager, APSRTC v. P. Lakshmoji Rao in granting relief.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 25-B

Subjects

regularizationdaily‑wage employeesdelaylachesservice lawArticle 226Industrial Disputes Actseniority

Judgment

J
.. ~
THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC A
v.
N. SATYANARAYANA AND ORS.

NOVEMBER 12, 2007
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
4
,....
Constitution ofIndia, 1950-Art.226:
Unexplained delay infiling ofwrit petition-Effect-Respondents
appointed on daily wage basis-Subsequently regularized-12 years
c
thereafter, Respondents filed writ petition seeking regularization from
date of their initial appointment as daily wagers-No explanation
given for the delayed approach-Held: Writ petition liable to be
dismissed on ground of delay and !aches-Service Law-
D
).
Regularization-Delay/Laches.
-'
Reliefgranted by Writ Court on misreading ofa Supreme Court
decision-Held: Not sustainable-Judicial Propriety.
Respondents-employees who had been recruited on daily wage
"" basis were subsequently regularized w.e.f. 1-8-1987. In 1999, the
E
Respondents filed writ petition before High Court seeking
regularization of their services right from the date of their initial
appointments as daily wage employees. The writ petition was
allowed by the High Court following the decision of this Court in the
>--"•·
case of Divisional Manager, APSRTC and Ors.*. Hence the present F
~
appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: The regularization was done w.e.f.1.8.1987 and the writ
petitions were filed in the year 1999. That being so and since in the G
writ petition no explanation has been offered for the delayed
~ approach, the writ petition should have been dismissed on the ground
of delay and la ch es. The High Court clearly lost sight of this fact
1013 H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.
·~
1014

-<~
A and misread the judgment of this Court in the case of Divisional
Manager, APSRTC and Ors.* to grant relief to the Respondents. Even
on a bare reading of the judgment on which reliance has been placed
by the High Court, it is clear that the relief was moulded to avoid
anomalies and in view of the peculiar situation involved.
B [Paras 10and11] [1017-A, B, C]
*Divisional Manager, APSRTC and Ors. v. P. Lakshmoji Rao and ~
·--.
Ors., [2004] 2 SCC 433, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5158 of
c 2007.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 6.4.2005 of the High Court
of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 874
of2005.

D R. Santhan Krishnan, K. Radha Rani, Praveen K. Pandey, P. Vijay
Kumar and D. Mal1esh Babu for the Appellant. ~ t
Ao-
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ,_
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
\
E 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench j
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No.874 of 2005
dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants and thereby upholding the
order passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.16244 of
1999 and some other writ petitions. The present appeal relates to Writ
F Petition No.16244 of 1999 which was filed by the respondents.
;~·

3. Factual position is almost undisputed. The respondents were
appointed as Conductors w.e.f. 31. l 0.1996 on daily wages basis.
Although the appointments of the respondents were on daily wages basis,
G their services were to be regularized in a phased manner as and when
sanctioned vacancies arose. Since sanctioned vacancies arose and the
respondents had completed 240 days of service, in terins of policy -,--' '
decision, their services were regularized w.e.f. 1.8.1987. After passage
of more than a decade, respondents filed a writ petition i.e. Writ Petition
(C) No.16244of1999 seeking regularization of their services from the
H
REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC v. N. 1015
SATYANARAYANA[P ASAYAT,J.]
date of initial appointment with all consequential benefits. By order dated A
18.08.2004, learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition along with
other cases allowing the writ petitions purportedly following the decision
of this Court in Divisional Manager, APSRTC and Ors. v. P. Lakshmoji
Rao and Ors., [2004] 2 SCC 433.
i 4. Writ Appeals were filed before the High Court challenging the B ·
r learned Single Judge's order on the ground that on a misreading of this
Court's judgment in Divisional Manager, APSRTC and Ors. case (supra)
the writ petition was allowed.
5. The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal holding that the c
judgment of this Comt in Divisional Manager, APSRTC's case (supra)
applied to the facts of the case.
6. In supp01t of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant -
Corporation submitted that both the learned Single Judge and the Division
Bench did r.ot appreciate the ratio of the decision in Divisional Manager, D
APSRTC's case (supra) in the proper perspective and have erroneously
held that the decision applied to the case of the respondents.
7. There is no appearance on behalf of any of the respondents in
spite of service of notice.
E
8. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the \\Tit petition relied
on paragraph-18 of the judgment of this Colllt. The same reads as follows:
"In view of this peculiar situation and in order to avoid the
anomalies that might otherwise ensue, while we hold that the
respondent employees have failed to establish their legal right to F
get the status of regular employees right from the date of their initial
appointment on daily-wage basis and the respective dates of
regularization assigned to the respondents cannot be legally faulted,
we are inclined to mould the relief in modification of the directions
given in the judgments under appeal and direct as follows: G
"If any of the conductors, junior to the respondents in the
relevant senior list of the concerned Division/Region, have got
the benefit of seniority and regularization OR are entitled to
get the san1e by virtue of the judgments that have become final,
H
1

1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.
t
-{ --f

A then the respondents who are seniors to them, shall be given
the same benefit on the same principle."
9. It is to be noted that the ratio of the decision in the said case was
to the following effect:

B "It is difficult to comprehend the ratio of the above decision.
While purporting to clarify the order passed in the writ petition by
the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench imported a totally alien
concept of continuous service within the meaning of Section 25-B
of the l.D. Act which was for the speciat purpose of applying the
c provisions as to lay off and retrenchment contained in Chapter V-
A of the Act. Moreover, the order iii the writ appeal is as vague
as it could be. The expression 'date of continuous appointment'
makes no sense. Even if it is taken that the said wording has been
inaccurately used for the words 'continuous ser\iice', still,_the
direction is unintelligible. Continuous service within the meaning of
D
Section 25-B for how long? Nothing has been specified. In this
state of things, in \\'..P. No. 24263of1998, a learned Single Judge
proceeded on the basis that as per the decision irt W.A. No. 705/
1995, the employees were entitled to seek regularization with effect
from the date of initial appointment, thus, making the darification
E
given by the Division Bench virtually otiose.
In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that
the law laid down or the directions given in various writ petitions/
writ appeals are not legally sustainable for more than one reason.
F Firstly, wrong criterion based on Section 25-B of LD. Act was
applied in case after case. Secondly, the respondents and other
similarly situated employees approached the Court under Article
226 long after their regularization, thereby unsettling the settled
position. Thirdly, on the facts of these cases, it is evident that the
G services of the employees who were recruited as Conductors were
regularized within a reasonable time. The respondent-employees
were, therefore, treated fairly. No service rule or regularization or
-r,
any other principle of law has been pressed into service by the
respohden~ to claim regularization from an anterior date i.e. right
froth the date of their initial appointment as daily wage employees."
REGIONALMANAGER,APSRTCv. N. 1017
SATYANARAYANA[PASAYAT,J.]
10. Even on a bare reading of paragraph-18 of the judgment on which A
reliance has been placed by the learned Single Judge and the Di vision '
Bench, it is clear that the relief was moulded to avoid anomalies and in
view of the peculiar situation involved. This Court categorically held that
the orders impugned in the appeals were not sustainable because the writ
petitions were filed after a long lapse of time. Similar is the position here. B
The regularization was done w.e.f. 1.8.1987 and the writ petitions were
filed in the year 1999. That being so and since in the writ petition no
explanation has been offered for the delayed approach, writ petition should
have been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
11. The le, 11ed Single Judge and the Division Bench clearly lost sight c
of this fact and as rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant,
misread the judgment of this Court to grant relief to the respondents.
Orders of both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the
High Com1 need to be vacated and we direct accordingly.
D
12. The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without any order
as to costs.
B.B.B. Appeal allowed.

~.

t