APHC010491582012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 10426/2012 Between: V. Rajeswara Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Vice Chairman Managing Director and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. N PREMRAJ Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. N SRIHARI ( SC FOR APSRTC ) 2. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) The Court made the following Order: The petitioners are challenging the inaction of the respondents in not regularizing the petitioner’s services on completion of 240 days of cotinuous service from the date of initial appointment. Consequently, they seek a direction to regularize their services from the day of the initial appointement, together with consequential benefits. 2. The petitioners were appointed as casual drivers in 1999. It is submitted that, along with petitioners, about 150 persons were appointed as casual drivers and conductors in the Kurnool region. 2 It is submitted that the respondent corporation has regularized about 50 casual drivers and conductors, who were appointed along with petitioners in the year 2002, on completion of 240 days. It is submitted tha the petitioners were regularized with effect from 05.10.2007. It is submitted that the petitioners are entitled for regularization soon after they complete 240 days of continuous service. 3. The learned Standing counsel for the respondents submits that the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services soon after completion of 240 days does not, in itself, entitle the petitioners to regularization. The petitioners’ services could only be regularized after there was an existing agency to be regularized. It is also submitted that the concept of completion of 240 days of service was introduced so as to pass on statutory liabilites to the employer, as per Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Insofar as the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their service, it is stated that the petitioners were regularized only when vacancies arose and the petitioners cannot compare themselves with the observations made in the order passed for other casual drivers and conductors in 2002. It is submitted that the respondent corporation has been regularizing the services of the employees 3 who were recruited on a casual basis as and when there was a requirement and a clear vacancy. 4. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and after perusing the record, the grievance of the petitioners seeking regularization from the date of initial appointment cannot be considered. It is a settled proposition of law that the petitioners cannot, as a matter of fundamental right, claim regularization when there was no vacnacy at that relevant point of time. Considering the submission of the learned Standing counsel for the respondents that the respondent corporation extended the benfit of regularization of services to the petitioners in 2007 as and when a vacancy arose, this cannot be revisited by this Court in the present writ petition. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 08.01.2025 NKA 4 380 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.10426 of 2012 Date: 08.01.2025 NKA