THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC versus N. SATYANARAYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 1013 · Decided: 12-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

J 
.. 
~ 
THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC 
A 
v. 
N. SATYANARA YANA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 12, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
B 
4 
,.... 
Constitution of India, 1950-Art.226: 
Unexplained delay in filing of writ petition-Effect-Respondents c 
appointed on daily wage basis-Subsequently regularized-12 years 
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. 
-' 
Relief granted by Writ Court on misreading of a Supreme Court 
decision-Held: Not sustainable-Judicial Propriety. 
"" 
Respondents-employees who had been recruited on daily wage E 
basis were subsequently regularized w.e.f. 1-8-1987. In 1999, the 
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 
F 
case of Divisional Manager, APSRTC and Ors.*. Hence the present 
>--"•· 
~ 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The regularization was done w.e.f.1.8.1987 and the writ 
G 
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, 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 
F 
1999 and some other writ petitions. The present appeal relates to Writ 
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 
H (C) No.16244of1999 seeking regularization of their services from the 
REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC v. N. 
1015 
SA TY ANARA Y ANA[P ASA YAT,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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.