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

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 1013

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM

Case summary

THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC v. N. SATYANARAYANA AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

J .. ~ THE REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC v. N. SATYANARAYANA AND ORS. NOVEMBER 12, 2007 [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 thereafter, Respondentsfiled writpetition seeking regularizationfrom date oftheir 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- 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 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 ofthis Court in the case ofDivisional 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 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 laches. The High Court clearly lost sight of this fact ·~ -<~ and misread the judgment of this Court in the case of Divisional Manager, APSRTCandOrs. * to grant reliefto the Respondents. Even on a bare reading ofthe judgment on which reliance has been placed by the High Court, it is clear that the reliefwas moulded to avoid anomalies and in view ofthe peculiar situation involved. [Paras 10and11] [1017-A, B, C] ~ *Divisional Manager, APSRTCandOrs. v. P. Lakshmoji Rao and ·--. Ors.

, [2004] 2 SCC 433, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5158 of 2007. From the final Judgment and Order dated 6. 4. 2005 ofthe High Court ofJudicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 874 of2005. R. Santhan Krishnan, K. Radha Rani, Praveen K. Pandey, P. Vijay Kumar and D. Mal1esh Babu for the Appellant. ~ t Ao- The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by ,_ DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. \ 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 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. l0. 1996 on daily wages basis.

Although the appointments ofthe respondents were on daily wages basis, 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 REGIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC v. N. 1015 date ofinitial appointment with all consequential benefits. By order dated 18. 08. 2004, learned Single Judge disposed ofthe Writ Petition along with other cases allowing the writ petitions purportedly following the decision ofthis 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 · r learned Single Judge's order on the ground that on a misreading ofthis 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 judgment ofthis 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 ofthe decision in Divisional Manager, APSRTC's case (supra) in the proper perspective and have erroneously held that the decision applied to the case ofthe respondents. 7. There is no appearance on behalfof any of the respondents in spite ofservice of notice. 8. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the \\Tit petition relied on paragraph-18 ofthe judgment ofthis 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 get the status ofregular employees right from the date oftheir 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 reliefin modification ofthe directions given in the judgments under appeal and direct as follows: "If any of the conductors, junior to the respondents in the relevant senior list ofthe concerned Division/Region, have got the benefit ofseniority and regularization OR are entitled to get the san1e by virtue ofthe judgments that have become final, t -{ --f 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 ofthe decision in the said case was to the following effect: "It is difficult to comprehend the ratio ofthe 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 ofcontinuous service within the meaning ofSection 25-B ofthe l. D. Act which was for the speciat purpose ofapplying the provisions as to lay offand retrenchment contained in Chapter V- A ofthe Act. Moreover, the order iii the writ appeal is as vague as it could be. The expression 'date ofcontinuous appointment' makes no sense. Even ifit 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 Section 25-B for how long? Nothing has been specified. In this state ofthings, 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 ofinitial appointment, thus, making the darification given by the Division Bench virtually otiose. In the light ofthe above discussion, we are ofthe 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. Firstly, wrong criterion based on Section 25-B ofLD. 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 ofthese cases, it is evident that the services ofthe employees who were recruited as Conductors were regularized within a reasonable time. The respondent-employees -r, were, therefore, treated fairly.

No service rule or regularization or 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 oftheir initial appointment as daily wage employees. " REGIONALMANAGER,APSRTCv. N. 10. Even on abare reading ofparagraph-18 ofthejudgment on which reliance has been placed by the learned Single Judge and the Division ' Bench, it is clear that the reliefwas moulded to avoid anomalies and in view ofthe 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 oftime. Similar is the position here. 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 ofdelay and laches. 11.

The le, 11ed Single Judge and the Division Bench clearly lost sight ofthis fact and as rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant, misread the judgment ofthis Court to grant relief to the respondents. Orders of both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench ofthe High Com1 need to be vacated andwe direct accordingly. 12. The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. B. B. B. Appeal allowed. ~. t