Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 517 (AP)

V. Ravinder v. Regional Manager, APSRTC

2002-04-08

S.R.K.PRASAD, S.R.NAYAK

body2002
S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9605 of 1999. The appellant not being satisfied with the relief granted by the learned single Judge in the impugned order has preferred this writ appeal for further relief. ( 2 ) IN the writ petition the appellant sought for the following relief:petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in regularising petitioners services only with effect from 19-4-1994 vide order dated 19-6-1994 instead of regularising petitioner service from the date on which the petitioner completed (240) days of service from the date of petitioner initial appointment and consequently direct the respondents to regularize petitioner service from the date on which he completed (240) days of service from the date of initial date of appointment along with one consequential benefits in the interest of justice and fair play. ( 3 ) FEW relevant facts germane to the decision making be noted briefly as under:the appellant joined the service of the APSRTC as driver Grade 11 on daily wage basis on 23-7-1991 and according to him he had put in 240 days of continuous service as on 30-6-1992. The appellant s services were regularized in the cadre of driver with effect from 1-7-1993. ( 4 ) THE grievance of the appellant is that the management of the APSRTC ought to have paid arrears of wage to him consequent upon regularization of his services with effect from 1-7-1993 instead of paying the same with effect from 19-4-1994. The learned single Judge, placing reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 705 of 1995, dated 24-7-1996 held that the appellant s services are required to be regularized from the date of his initial appointment on completion of 240 working days and has further held that the appellant is not entitled to arrears or back wages. ( 5 ) THE question that arose before the learned single Judge and that arises before us is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court in APSRTC v. P. T. Rao and Ors. ( 5 ) THE question that arose before the learned single Judge and that arises before us is no longer res integra. A Division Bench of this Court in APSRTC v. P. T. Rao and Ors. , 1998 (3) ALD 45 = 1998 (2) ALT 447 , held that the workmen are entitled to regularization of their services from the date of their initial appointment to the post in question on completion of 240 working days. There is no controversy in applying the said ratio. The APSRTC itself, in the present case, has regularized the services of the workman with effect from 1-7-1993. ( 6 ) THE further question whether the workman concerned is entitled to wage flowing from regularization of services with effect from the date of regularization or whether it is permissible for the APSRTC to fix any date posteriot to that date for the purpose of payment of arrears is also no longer res integra. The decision of a Division Bench of this Court in M. V. Chalapalhi v. Managing Director, APSRTC, 1999 (3) ALD 644 , squarely answers that question. It is well settled that once regularization of services is ordered in favour of an employee or workman with effect from a particular date, all the attendant benefits - pecuniary and otherwise, flowing from such regularization would be extended to the concerned employee or workman with effect from the date of regularization unless the law governing such regularization enables the employer to extend the benefits of regularization from the actual date of the order of regularization and not with reference to the date of regularization as such. Therefore, in the course of hearing we asked the learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC whether there is any enabling provision which arms the management of the APSRTC to pay arrears of age, etc. , arising out of regularization of services of the appellant with effect from 1-7-1993 from any date posterior to that date as in the present case with effect from 19-4-1994. The learned Standing Counsel was not in a position to place any such rule or administrative instructions before us. If that is the case the appellant is entitled to all the benefits - pecuniary and otherwise flowing from regularization with effect from 1-7-1993 and not 19-4-1994, the actual date of the order. The learned Standing Counsel was not in a position to place any such rule or administrative instructions before us. If that is the case the appellant is entitled to all the benefits - pecuniary and otherwise flowing from regularization with effect from 1-7-1993 and not 19-4-1994, the actual date of the order. In taking this opinion we are supported by the decisions handed down by the this Court not only in M. V. Chalapathi s case (supra) but also in Writ Appeal No. 705 of 1995. ( 7 ) IN the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in P. T. Rao s case (supra), we do not find any ratio which would support the hypothesis that if there are number of claimants seeking regularization, it is permissible for the management of the APSRTC not to extend the benefits of regularization with effect from the date of regularization but to extend the same with effect from the date of the order of regularization. No doubt, in that case that was the relief granted in favour of the APSRTC. It is well settled that a decision or the relief as such is not the ratio decidendi of a judgment. The ratio decidendi of the judgment is the rationale of the judgment. Since we do not find any ratio decidendi in the above judgment of the Division Bench whereas we find ratio in the judgments of the co-ordinate Division Benches of this Court in M. V. Chalapathi s case, (supra) and Writ Appeal No. 705 of 1995, applying the law supposed to have been declared in PT Rao s case (supra) (but according to us none exists), would not arise. In that view of the matter denial of the relief to the appellant by the learned single Judge placing reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench in P. T. Rao s case, in our considered opinion, is neither legal nor justified. ( 8 ) IN the result, the writ appeal is allowed. A direction shall issue to the respondents to extend all the benefits -pecuniary and otherwise, flowing from regularization of the services of the appellant with effect from the date of regularization i. e. , 1-7-1993. Two month s time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order is granted to the respondents to comply with this order. A direction shall issue to the respondents to extend all the benefits -pecuniary and otherwise, flowing from regularization of the services of the appellant with effect from the date of regularization i. e. , 1-7-1993. Two month s time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order is granted to the respondents to comply with this order. The parties to bear their own costs in this writ appeal.