Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2007 Supreme(SC) 1445

2007(7) Supreme 665
Supreme Court of india
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam, JJ.
The Regional Manager, APSRTC —Appellant
versus
N. Satyanarayana and Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5158 of 2007
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 17859 of 2005)
Decided on : 12-11-2007

Counsels for the Parties :
For the Appellant :R. Santhan Krishnan, Ms. K. Radha Rani, Praveen K. Pandey, P. Vijay Kumar and D. Mahesh Babu, Advocates.
For the Respondent: None.

Important Point
Where Single Judge and Division Bench misread a judgment of Court to grant relief to respondents, orders of both Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court held liable to be vacated.

Headnote:Service law – Regularization – Appointment of respondents as conductors on daily wages basis w.e.f 31-10-1996 – Regularization of services w.e.f 1-8-1987 in terms of policy decision when sanctioned vacancies arose and respondents had completed 240 days of service – Writ petition by respondents seeking regularization of there services from date of initial appointment - Single Judge disposed of Writ Petition along with other cases allowing writ petitions purportedly following decision of Court in Divisional Manager, APSRTC and Ors. vs. P. Lakshmoji Rao and Ors. - Writ Appeals filed challenging Single Judge’s order on ground that on a misreading of Court’s judgment in Divisional Manager APSRTC and Ors. case writ petition was allowed - Division Bench dismissed writ appeal – Appeal there against - Even a bare reading of paragraph-18 of judgment on which reliance had been placed by Single Judge and Division Bench, it was held clear that relief was moulded to avoid anomalies and in view of peculiar situation involved - This Court categorically held that orders impugned in the appeals were not sustainable because writ petitions were filed after a long lapse of time - The regularization was done w.e.f. 1.8.1987 and writ petitions were filed in the year 1999 - That being so and since in writ petition without any explanation had been offered for delayed approach, writ petition ought to have been dismissed on ground of delay and laches - Single Judge and Division Bench clearly lost sight of said fact and misread judgment of this Court to grant relief to the respondents - Orders of both Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court held liable to be vacated - Appeal allowed. (Paras 10 to 12)
       2004(2) Sec 433 relied upon.
       Facts of the Case :
       1.Writ petition was filed herein in the instant case by respondent conductor who were appointed on daily wages for regularization of there services from date of initial appointment. Said writ petition was allowed by single judge purportedly following decision of Court in Divisional Manager, APSRTC and Ors. vs. P. Lakshmoji Rao and Ors. Writ Appeals there against were filed challenging Single Judge’s order on ground that on a misreading of Court’s judgment in Divisional Manager APSRTC and Ors. Case writ petition was allowed. Said writ appeals were dismissed by High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
       The Court held that even a bare reading of paragraph-18 of judgment on which reliance had been placed by Single Judge and Division Bench, it was held clear that relief was moulded to avoid anomalies and in view of peculiar situation involved. This Court categorically held that orders impugned in the appeals were not sustainable because writ petitions were filed after a long lapse of time. The regularization was done w.e.f. 1.8.1987 and writ petitions were filed in the year 1999. That being so and since in writ petition without any explanation had been offered for delayed approach, writ petition ought to have been dismissed on ground of delay and laches. Single Judge and Division Bench clearly lost sight of said fact and misread judgment of this Court to grant relief to the respondents. Orders of both Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court held liable to be vacated. Appeal allowed.
       Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.—

1.Leave granted.

2.Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench 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. 31.10.1996 on daily wages basis. Although the appointments of the 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 terms 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.16244 of 1999 seeking regularization of their services from the date of initial appointment with all consequential benefits. By order dated 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.1, (2004 (2) SCC 433).

4.Writ Appeals were filed before the High Court challenging the 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 judgment of this Court in Divisional Manager, APSRTC’s case (supra) applied to the facts of the case.

6.In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant - Corporation submitted that both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench did not appreciate the ratio of the decision in Divisional Manager, 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.

8.The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition relied on paragraph-18 of the judgment of this Court. 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 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:

“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 same by virtue of the judgments that have become final, 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 :

“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 I.D. Act which was for the special purpose of applying the provisions as to lay off and retrenchment contained in Chapter V-A of the Act. Moreover, the order in 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 1445

2007(7) Supreme 665Supreme Court of india(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam, JJ.The Regional Manager, APSRTC —AppellantversusN. Satyanarayana and Ors. — RespondentsCivil Appeal No. 5158 of 2007(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 17859 of 2005)Decided on : 12-11-2007

Important PointWhere Single Judge and Division Bench misread a judgment of Court to grant relief to respondents, orders of both Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court held liable to be vacated.

Cases Referred (1)

Important Point
Where Single Judge and Division Bench misread a judgment of Court to grant relief to respondents, orders of both Single Judge and Division Bench of High Court held liable to be vacated.