IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

WRIT APPEAL No.1001 of 2025

Dated:16.12.2025

Between:

The TSRTC, (now TGSRTC)

Rep., by its Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

Musheerabad, Hyderabad and two others.

…Petitioner

and

J. Kishan and 5 others.

…Respondents

JUDGMENT:

Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel

represents Mr. N. Chandrasekhar, learned Standing counsel for the Telangana State Road Transport

Corporation appears for the appellants.

Smt. G.R. Mercy Vijaya, learned counsel for the

respondents.

2. The learned writ Court by the impugned order dated 03.07.2025 directed the appellant - Telangana State Road

Transport Corporation (for short, “the Corporation”) to reconsider the case of the respondents/writ petitioners as a special case as they have rendered prolonged and uninterrupted service for regularization wherever they are fit. It also imposed a rider that the respondents shall not be entitled to claim any back wages or retrospective service benefits. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant Corporation preferred this appeal.

3. Facts as are relevant for consideration of the issue are furnished in a tabular chart, which are extracted hereunder:

4. A perusal of the list of dates shows that in May, 2000 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.239 of 2000 in a matter concerning the same respondents/writ petitioners seeking regularization of their services in the posts they were working as contract labour, the Apex Court while disposing of the said Special Leave Petition directed the appellant Corporation to continue the respondents in service and observed that the question of their regularization shall be decided in accordance with the Rules.

5. In Review Petition (Civil) No.856 of 2001 in the same Special Leave Petition, the subsequent order dated 02.03.2001 was recalled reviving the order dated 05.05.2000 referred to hereinabove. Thereafter, the respondents have continued uninterruptedly till date. However, they have been denied regularization on the ground that they were not engaged as against any sanctioned post and that the posts of Sweeper, Mali, Attender etc., were abolished as per Circular No.6/2004- IED, dated 15.03.2004. Their cases were not considered for regularization as they do not possess the requisite qualification of Industrial Training Institute (ITI) in Diesel Mechanic for only available Class-IV post, Shramik/Khalasi. This decision dated 19.04.2012 became the subject matter of W.P.No.20460 of 2022, wherein the respondents/writ petitioners also sought regularization of their services from the initial date of engagement or any subsequent date. In this factual background, the learned writ Court directed the appellant Corporation to reconsider the case of the respondents as a special case and to take appropriate steps for regularization of their services wherever they are fit with the rider that they would not get retrospective benefits or back wages.

6. During the course of proceedings of this plea, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant Corporation was asked to seek instructions as to whether the Corporation is going to formulate any scheme which may address the grievance of the respondents, who have continued under ad hoc engagement for around 25 years. On this observation, learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation submits on instructions that though there is no scheme formulated for regularization of the respondents, the Corporation is inclined to entertain their application for regularization in individual cases depending upon the availability of posts and other uniform eligibility conditions. Learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation submits that the Corporation shall not discontinue the engagement of the respondents till they reach the age of superannuation in any case.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners submits that the appeal may be disposed of without interfering with the order of the lear