APHC010320782012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 33803/2012 Between: 1.B.C. MRUTHYUNJAYA SASTRY, S/O B.C.JWALA NARASIMHULU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED JUNIOR ASSISTANT, RIO GOOTY, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. OF AP LTD., MINT COMPOUND, HYDERABAD. 2.THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER OPERATION, CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. OF AP LTD., ANANTAPUR. 3.THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER OPERATION, CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. OF AP LTD., GOOTY, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto call for the records from the Respondents and issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of respondents in not regularizing services of petitioner on the basis of the approved list as per the proceedings dated 03-04-1987 on par with other employees as illegal, unjust, contrary to law, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and grant all consequential benefits IA NO: 1 OF 2012(WPMP 42999 OF 2012 Petition under Section 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 to cosnider the case of petitioner for regularization of his services on par with his colleagues with effect from 10.06.1986, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.V PADMANABHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.Y.NAGI REDDY (APSPDCL) 2.Venkata Rama Rao Kota SC FOR APSPDCL 3.P LAXMA REDDY The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.33803 OF 2012 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is seeking a direction for regularizing his service benefits from 03.04.1987 on par with the other employees. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been working initially as a casual Labourer from the year 1979. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent issued proceedings on 03.04.1987, and finalized the list of Ex.Casual Labourers of the division and approved the list. Though he petitioner’s name figured in the approved list, his case was not considered for regularization on par with others, on the sole ground that the petitioner was over-aged. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed WP.No.1214 of 1989 and this Court directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner without referring to the age criteria. 3. It is further submitted that the respondents filed Special Leave Petiiton against the said orders and that the same was also dismissed on 15.03.1999. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, though the petitioner’s name was required to be considered for regularization from 03.04.1987, his services were regularized on 11.09.1997 after the dismissal of the writ appeal filed by the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for regularization from the initial preparation of list i.e., 03.04.1987, and that, considering that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation as on date, the petitioner would be entitled for some financial benefit if 3 there is a direction from this Court to consider the petitioner as a regular employee w.e.f. 03.04.1987. 4. The learned standing counsel for the respondents, on the contrary, submits that the petitioner, as on the date of initial engagement on 17.12.1979 was over-aged and was not eligible for engagement as a casual Labourer. However, he was placed in the seniority of Ex-Casual Labourers on 03.04.1987. Considering his over-age, the petitioner was not considered for regularization along with others. It is further submitted that, as a special case, the respondents has considered the petitioner and regularized his services on 11.09.1987. It is also submitted that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition after his retirement and has not explained the delay for all these years in claiming the date of regularization from 03.04.1987. It is also submitted by the learned standing counsel for the respondents that the claim for regularization along with other employees cannot be considered by this Court, as the petitioner was not entitled for regularization on account of having the petitioner crossed the maximum age limit of 25 years. 5. The case of the petitioner was considered in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Division Bench which had considered long service of the petitioner and, on that basis, refused to interfere with the writ appeal filed by the respondents. It is submitted that the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2012 and the present writ petition is filed on 29.10.2012. 4 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that WP.No.2734 of 2004 was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.09.2012, grating liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition. It is submitted that the present writ petition is a comprehensive one and, as such, the claim of the petitioner seeking regularization with effect from 03.04.1987 would have to be considered. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record. 8. The petition is silent as to whether the petitioner was in continuous service from 03.04.1987 till 11.09.1997. The Counter is also silent on this aspect. That apart, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.2012. The petitioner was aware of the date of regularization i.e., 11.09.1997, and filed the writ petition in the year 2004 after lapse of five years, which was subsequently withdrawn. The petitioner has not submitted any document before this Court seeking consideration of his regularization from 03.04.1987 at any point of time, as no such document is filed. The inordinate delay in filing the writ petition after lapse of five years is unexplained and, on the ground of delay and latches, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N KGM 5 188 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.33803 OF 2012 Dated 28.01.2026 KGM