Daily-Wage Conductors Not Entitled to Retrospective Regularisation

Case Details: K. Srinu and Eleven vs. Govt. of A.P. - [2026] 187 taxmann.com 604 (HC-TELANGANA)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) issued a notification dated 10-10-1999 for the recruitment of Grade-II Conductors/Drivers, providing for initial appointment on a daily-wage basis, with regularisation upon becoming eligible.

The petitioners were selected in 2000, underwent training, and were subsequently appointed as daily-wage conductors to fill vacancies arising during 2001–2002. Their services were regularised prospectively with effect from 1-7-2009 under G.O.Ms. No.145 dated 1-7-2009 and consequential proceedings.

The petitioners sought regularisation from the date of initial appointment or from completion of 240 days, claiming parity with batchmates.
The Corporation and State contended that the petitioners were appointed against 2001–2002 vacancies, had not completed 240 working days on the relevant dates, and that regularisation depended upon the availability of vacancies and Government approval.
Further, reliance was placed on G.O.Ms. No.285 dated 5-10-2007, G.O.Ms. No. 145 dated 1-7-2009 and settlements under section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, providing for the phased regularisation of casual drivers and conductors recruited up to 1999.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the petitioners, appointed against vacancies arising in 2001–2002, could not claim retrospective regularisation or parity with employees recruited earlier under a different scheme of regularisation. Further, the High Court held that the prospective regularisation granted under G.O.Ms. No.145 called for no interference.

List of Cases Reviewed

Jai Narain Vyas University v. Mukesh Sharma, etc. Etc. [Civil Appeal Nos.2096-2198 of 2022, dated 28-3-2022]
A.V.S.N.B. Shankaran v. Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages 1997 (1) ALD 154 (D.B.)
Somesh Thapliyal and another, etc. v. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal AIR 2021 SC 4158
Om Prakash Banerjee v. State of West Bengal and Others, 2023 SCC Online SC 771 (para 19) distinguished
State of Haryana v. Piara Singh [1993] 1992 taxmann.com 1353 (SC)/(1992) 4 SCC 118
State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary v. Seems Sharma 2022 Live Law (SC) 571
Surendra Kumar v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (2015) 14 SCC 382 (para 21) followed

List of Cases Referred to

Regional Manager, APSRTC v. N. Satyanarayana (2008) 1 SCC 210 (para 17)
Divisional Manager, APSRTC v. P. Lakshmoji Rao & others 2004 taxmann.com 2934 (SC) (para 17)
Union of India v. Sheela Rani (2007) 15 SCC 230 (para 17)
Registrar General of India v. V. Thippa Setty (1998) 8 SCC 690 (para 17)
State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh [1997] 1996 taxmann.com 1742 (SC) (para 17)
Jivanlal v. Pravin Krishna, Principal Secretary (2016) 15 SCC 747 (para 17)
U.P. State Electricity Board v. Pooran Chandra Pandey [2008] 2007 taxmann.com 2678 (SC) (para 17)
Somesh Thapliyal and another, etc. v. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal AIR 2021 SC 4158 (para 18)
Om Prakash Banerjee v. State of West Bengal and Others 2023 SCC Online SC 771 (para 18)
Jai Narain Vyas University v. Mukesh Sharma, etc. Etc. [Civil Appeal Nos.2096-2198 of 2022, dated 28.03.2022] (para 18)
A.V.S.N.B. Shankaran v. Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages 1997 (1) ALD 154 (D.B.) (para 18)
State of Haryana v. Piara Singh [1993] 1992 taxmann.com 1353 (SC) (para 20)
State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary v. Seems Sharma 2022 Live Law (SC) 571 (para 20)
SURENDRA KUMAR v. GREATER NOIDA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY [2015] 7 taxmann.com 1328 (SC) (para 20)