HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 21157 OF 2007

O R D E R:

Petitioners challenge the action of respondent-State Road Transport Corporation in not regularising their services on par with juniors / batch-mates. They consequently, seek a direction to Corporation to regularise their services as conductor with effect from 01.07.1992 instead of 01.08.1994 on par with juniors/batch-mates.

2. Petitioners were appointed on 02.05.1991 and their services were regularised on 08.09.1994 with effect from 01.08.1994. However, it is their grievance that services of their junior viz. K. Balaraju Goud, E.No. 280785 were regularised on 06.07.1992. Whereas the case of Corporation in their counter is that the said Balaraju Goud’s services were regularised in the vacant post based on serial number / roster points.

3. Heard Sri P. Venakteswara Rao, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for Corporation.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that selection itself was made as per roster and there should not be further reservation for regularisation. He relied on the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3407 of 2001, wherein by order dated 08.08.2019, respondent Corporation was directed to regularise the services of petitioner therein on par with his batch-mates who were less meritorious, with effect from 17.08.1992 with all consequential benefits. In the said Writ Petition, it was held that date of regularisation cannot be dependent on the date of reporting to duty.

5. Further, insofar as the contention of the Corporation that Writ Petition was filed after a long lapse of 13 years from the date of regularisation and claim is hit by laches and delay by itself will take away the rights of petitioners is concerned, learned counsel for petitioners submits that regularisation or fixation is recurring cause of action which affects each and every month. In support of this contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, [AIR 1996 SC 669], wherein it was held that so long as employee is in service, a fresh cause of action arises every month when he / she is paid monthly salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to the Rules.

6. In view of the above two judgments direct on the subject, this Court is of the firm opinion that petitioners are also entitled to regularisation on par with their juniors / batch-

mates but not from the later date.

7. The Writ Petition is therefore, disposed of directing the respondent Corporation to regularise the services of petitioners on par with their juniors / batch-mates, with all consequential benefits. No costs.

8. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.

------------------------------------- NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J

10^th December 2024 ksld