Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M.V. Chalapathi And Another vs Managing Director, Apsrtc, ... on 15 March, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(3)ALD644, 1999(4)ALT763
Author: A.S. Bhate
Bench: A.S. Bhate
ORDER
M.S. Liberhan, CJ
1. This appeal arises out of an order of the learned single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellants on the ground of ladies.
2. The appellants - writ petitioners were employed in the respondents -Corporations as casual conductors on 19-12-1983 and 3-4-1984. By order dated 8-7-1985, the services of the appellants were regularised with effect from 6-4-1985. The appellants filed the writ petition seeking a direction that their services should be regularised with effect from 19-12-1983 and 3-4-1984 respectively instead of 6-4-1985. The prayer was rejected by the learned single Judge on the ground of laches. The learned single Judge observed that the appellants never made any representation and if their claim is allowed, it will unsettle the settled tilings.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the respondents - Corporation themselves having conceded before this Court in Writ Petition No.26111 of 1998 with respect to similarly situated persons for regularisation of their services from the date of their initial appointment, cannot be permitted to take a different stand and deny the claim of the appellants herein who are similarly placed like the petitioners in WP No.26111 of 1998.
4. The respondent - Corporation, being an ideal employer, and in the interest of industrial peace and to avoid frustration and heart-burning among the co-workers, cannot take the stand of pick and choose for regularisation of services of similarly situated workmen. With respect to persons appointed in 1984 and who were given regularisation with effect from 1986 by the Corporation were ordered to be given regular!sation in 1998 with effect from the date of their initial appointment in Writ Petition No.26111 of 1998 and in the said WP there was no opposition by the Corporation for giving such relief, but, in the case of petitioners herein, their claim for regularisation was opposed on the hyper-technical ground of 'laches'. Ground of laches' is not an absolute bar. Court is expected to condone the same in order to do justice and put the persons on the same pedestal as similarly situated persons are being treated by the Corporation. The Corporation, on their own act and conduct, having granted relief to some persons similarly situated, cannot take a different stand and deny the benefit of regularisation of services to the appellants on the ground of approaching this Court belatedly.
5. In the light of ihe observations made above, the order of the learned single Judge is set aside. The appeal is accepted. The respondents are directed to consider the cases of the appellants for regularisation of their services notionally with effect from the date they were entitled to. It is made clear that the appellants shall be given the same benefits which have been granted by the respondents in respect of similarly situated persons. There shall be no order as to costs.