The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking regularization of services from the date of initial appointment, held inordinate and unexplained after 22 years, despite a prior Labour Court award.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3167 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTHDAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND ANDTWENTYTHREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICEA.ABHISHEKREDDY
WRIT PETITION NO: 38794OF2012
Between:
S.Shanker Goud, S/o.Raja Goud,Occ: Conductor, E.302391, Fi/o.14'Rajampet Post & village, Dandepalli Mandal,Adilabad District
...PETITIONER
AND
1 The APSRTC, rep. by its ManagingDirector,Musheelqla!' f]$e.r9!ad. 2 The Reqional Mahaq-er, APSRTC,Adilabad Region, Adilabad District. 3 The Defot Manager] APSRTC,Mancherial Depot, Adilabad District.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of lheConstitution of lndiapraying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records from the respondentshereinand issue a writ order or directionparticularly onein the natureof writ of mandamus by declaring in action of the respondents innot regularizingpetitioner services on par with petitioner coleagues with effect from1 .7 .1988 interms ofproceedings No.E1l232(6/88 DVMADB dated20.12.1988in pursuance of award dated 19.2.21990 in lD.No.703 0f1989 0n the file of Hon'ble Labour court, Godavarikhani, KarimnagarDistrict as illegal, unjust contraryto law arbitrary, and also inviolation of Article14 & 21 of Constitutionof lndia consequentlydirect the respondents togrant therelief of regularizationwith effect from1.7.1988on par with my colleagues bytakinginto consideration award datd 19.2.1990in lD.No.T03oflgSgbysettingasideletterNo.LC/785(lD-2y201o-RMADBdated 18.9.2010.
ilzil
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP. NO: 49211 OF 20121
Petition underSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents herein to consider petitioner services for regularization with effect from 1.7.1988 in pursuance of proceedings No.El 1232(6)188 DVM ADM dated 20.12.1988 without reference to letter No.LC/785(lD-2)12010-RM ADB dated 18.9.2010 of the 2nd respondent.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P. SRIDHAR RAO
Gounsel for the Respondents: SRI A. SRINIVAS REDDY (SC FOR TSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICEA.ABHISHEK REDDY
WRIT PETITIONNo.38794of 2O12
ORDER:
This writ Petition,under Artic^e 226 0f the constitutionof India, is filedquestioningthc actionof the respondentsin not regularizing the servicesof the petitioner on par with his colleagues w.e.f.O1.07. 1988 in terms ofproceedings No.Ell232(6)188 DVMADB, dated20.12.1988 in pursuance of the Award dated L9.O2.1990in I.D. No.703 of 1989 on the file of the Labour Court, Godavarikhani.
2l Heard the learnedcounselfor the petitionerand Sri A. Srinivas Reddy, learnedStanding Counsel, for the respondent Corporation.
AAR, J
2
to the operative portion of the Award dated 19.02.1990 and contended that in spite of specific direction given by the Labour Court, the official respondents instead of regularizing the services of the petitioner from 02.02.1988 have regularized the services ol Lhe petitioner from O1.O7.1990. Even the representation dated 13.05.2010 made by the petitioner to respondent No.2 was rejected uide order dated 18.09.2010.
AAR, J
3
-7
not chosen to filethe writ petitionwithina reasonable time and after a lapseof more than 22 years the petitioner has approached thisHon'bleand filed the presentwrit petition and therefore the writpetitionis liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of laches. Further,the learned Standing Counsel has stated that the servicesof the writ petitioner were regularised from O1.O7.1990 andhe was not workingat the relevant point of time whereas theother colleagueswho were appointedalong with the petitionerwere continuouslyworking inthe Corporation. LearnedStanding counsel has also stated that the orders of this Court,on which reliancehas been placedby the petitioner, are distinguishableon facts, as in those cases, the employees were continuouslyworking whereasin the caseon hand the petitionerwas not working during the relevantpoint of time. Learned StandingCounsel has placed relianceon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inThe Reglonal Manager, APSRTC u..U. Satganaro;go;not in supportof his submissions.
r MANU/SC/809712007
AAR,.J
4
authorities concerned.Learned counsel has statedthat the petitioner has given arepresentationon13.05.2010and immediately afterreceivingtherejectionorder dated L8.0g.2O10, hehas filed the present writ petition. Therefore, the learned counselhas stated that the writ petition filed is well within time. Learnedcounsel has further stated that the official respondents areexpectedto implement the Award of the Labour Court in toto, butthe Awardof the Labour Court has not been implemented in truespirit.That inspite of there beinga specific direction toreinstate the petitioner and give him the benefit of continuityof service, the official respondentshavenot done so. Further, itis contendedby the learned counsel for the petitioner that evenif the authoritiesregularizethe services of the petitioner fromthe date of his initial appointment, no prejudice would be caused toany other employees and it is only for the purpose ofextending some retirement benefits and the Corporation will notbe put to any loss. Learnedcounselhas also stated that in w.P. No.8002of 2o11,W.P.No.9677 of 20i1 and w.P. No.24410 of 2OI2the writ petitioners therein have approached this Hon'bleCourt after a gap of almostten years and the said writ petitions were allowed by this Court and the said orders have also attained finality. Therefore, th.g petitioner .\ is also entitled for the very same benefit.
AAR, J
5
\ \
AAR, J
6
the Labour Court in I.D.No,703 of 1989 and that his services were regularized w.c.f.01.O7.1990,but for reasonsbest known to him, he has keptquiet for a period of two decades till he made a representationon 13.05.2010.The delay of 20 years cannot, by anystretch of imagination,be called as reasonable, which can be condonedby this Court, as a matter of course.
"7 l. On thebasis of the decisionsof the Supreme Court referred to above, the relevantconsiderationsthat may be taken into account in determiningthe issueof delay and laches may be summarized thus:
2 2Ol3 SCC Online AP 729
AAR, J
7
ii
(t) Though no period of limitation is prescribed for the writ Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or to file a writpetition, aperson aggrieved should approach the Court without loss of time. In appropriate cases, where there is delay and the same has properly been explained with cogent reasons, Court may condone the delay as an exception to meet the ends of justice. But, it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters.
(2) Courts have evolved rules of self-imposed restraints or fetters where the High Court may hot enquire into belated or stale claim and deny relief to a party if he is found guilty of laches. One who is tardy, not vigilant and does not seek intervention of the Court within a reasonable time from the date of accrual of cause of action or alleged violation of the constitutional, legal or other right, is not entitled to relief under Article 226.
(s)
(41
(s)
(6) The principle on which the Court refuses relief on the ground of laches or delay is that the rights accrued to others by the delay in filing the petition should not be disturbed, unless there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, because Court should not harm innocent parties if their rights had emerged by the delay on the part of the petitioners.
(7) Where there is remiss or negligence on the part of a party approaching the Court for relief after an inordinate and unexplained delay, in such cases, it would not be proper to enforce the fundamental right As a general rule if there has been unreasonable delay the Court ought not ordinarily to lend its aid to a party in exercise of the extraordinary power of mandamus.
AAR, J
8
(B) There is no waiver of fundamental right Butwhile exercising discretionaryjurisdiction Court can take into account delay and laches on thepart of the applicantin approaching a writ Court
(e) .... .
(10) .....
(11) If a person entitled to a relief choosesto remain silent for long, he therebygives rise to a reasonablebelief in the mind of others thathe isnot interestedin claiming that relief. Courts have appliedthe rule of delaywithgreater rigor in service matters.
(12) The benefit of ajudgment cannot be extendedto a case automatically. The Court isentitled to take into consideration the fact asto whetherthe petitioner had chosen to sit over thematter and wake up after the decision of the Court If itis found that the petitioner approached the Courtrvithunreasonable delay, the same may disentitle him to obtain adiscretionaryrelief. Long Dela.y disentitles aparty tothe discretionary reliefunder Articles 32 and 226 andpersonswho had slept over their rights lor long and electedto wake up when they had the impetus liom thejudgment of similarly placed persons.
(13) Where during the interveningperiod rights of third parties have crystallized, it would beinequitable to disturb those rights at the instance of aperson whohas approached the Court afterlong lapse of time andwhere there is no cogent explanationfor the delay.
(14) .....
I
AAR, J
establish that inspite of his bestefforts and diligence he was prevented fromapproaching the authoritywithinthe period of limitationprovided for or the writ Court within a reasonableperiod of time. If the workman is not able to satisfactorilyexplain with cogent reasonsfor the delayhe is not entitled toseek for condonationof the delay. It is true that thepunishmentimposed cannot be sustained in law because of theillegalitycrept in it innot conducting aprior enquiry. But, still the workmanis under a statutoryobligation to challengethe salne within the time providedby the statutory rules or regulationsor within a reasonableperiod of time before the writ Court If delay of 5 to 18yearsis condoned, for no reasonor fault on the part of theauthority, the proceedingswhich had attained finality areto be set aside. setting aside of such order at a belatedstage and allowing of a stale claim, may, as rightlyheld by the Division Bench in Esa AIi's case (supra), inspire theworkmanto seekfor consequential benefitsof promotion as well, in which event, the rights of thethird partieswouldadversely be affected for no fault oftheirs. A workman who is tardy and not diligent foryears in availinga statutoryremedy or in approaching theCourt of law, in our view, cannot be encouraged orpermittedto contend that in viewof the decision of theSupremeCourt the punishment cannot be sustained inlaw, therefore, delay to any extent is to be condonedautomatically in exerciseof the power conferred on theappellateor revisionalauthorities or by the writ Courtsin exercise of the discretionary powers under Article 226of the constitutionof India. Courts can come to theaid of a personwho is diligent and vigilant but unableto approach the authority or court of law for redressalof his grievancein spite of his
AAR,.J
10
best effortsand reasons beyondhis controlbut not to a person whois tardy and negligentor slept over the matterin availing the statutory or legal remedies'
AAR, J
11
\ \
( (
authority would certainly be fatal to the case of a workman unless properly explained with cogent reasons.
74.It is true that in some cases where the delay is five yea-rs or so the Supreme Court inclined to condone the delay but under different circumstances. When the fundamental rights are violated or where the delay is not directly attributable to the party seeking the relief or where the rights of the third parties are not intervened or in matters where seniority of employees is not finalized, the Court, would be justified to grant the relief; but not as a general rule of practice. Therefore, in our considered opinion, Kulutant Singh Gilll's case (supra), does not confer or clothe an automatic right with the employee to challenge the order of the authority at any time or whenever he wishes. The principles laid down by the Apex Court governing the condonation of delay will certainly and equally have application even in cases where challenge is made to an order imposing the punishment contrary to the Regulations or the ratio in Kulwant Singh Gill's case (supra), where the employee had slept over the matter and had not chosen to challenge it within a reasonable period of time. It may also be noticed that in service matters, the Courts have applied the rule of delay with greater rigor."
1 1) Relying on the settled proposition of law, a Division Bench of this Court had dismissed the Writ Appeal Nos.1660 of 2018 and 593 of 2016 uide common judgment dated L3.I2.2O21 holding that there was inordinate delay in approaching the t Court.
AAR, J
12
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if dfly, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
SD/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (-/ SECTION OFFICER
To,
CHR GJP / d
\
t
HIGH COURT
DATE I i2810212023
. '^. i:'-
|,,1-
$$
( s\ .lr
\ "i<br>-)
L)
4 1ei,p
ORDER
Vlf.P.No.38794 of 2012
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition seeking regularization of services filed after a delay of 22 years can be condoned despite the lack of cogent explanation for the delay.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regularization on par with colleagues despite having slept over the matter for over two decades after the Labour Court award.
Whether the delay bars the court from interfering in service matters where the petitioner failed to approach authorities expeditiously.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The Regional Manager, APSRTC v. U. SatyanarayanaReferred¶32
The Regional Manager, APSRTC v. U. Satyanarayana
P.V. Narayana v. APSRTC, HyderabadApplied¶48
P.V. Narayana v. APSRTC, Hyderabad
Esa Ali's caseReferred¶73
Esa Ali's case
Kulwant Singh Gill's caseReferred¶78
Kulwant Singh Gill's case
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S. Shanker Goud
The APSRTC
A. Abhishekk Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
