JUDGMENT : Heard Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) appearing for appellants in W.A.No.1181 of 2024 and for respondents in W.A.No.16 of 2025 and Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for appellant/writ petitioner in W.A.No.16 of 2025 and for respondent/writ petitioner in W.A.No.1181 of 2024. 2. Writ Appeal No.1181 of 2024 has been preferred by the Corporation against the order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the learned writ Court in Review I.A.No.2 of 2023 in Writ Petition No.27661 of 2016. The accompanying I.A.No.1 of 2024, however, indicates that the Corporation has sought condonation of delay of 464 days that is counted from the order dated 06.06.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.27661 of 2016. In order to take the chronology a bit further back, it is relevant to refer to the challenge made by the writ petitioner, a Conductor in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, in Writ Petition No.27668 of 2005 which was decided by the learned writ Court vide order dated 04.11.2013. The learned writ Court had set aside the order dated 04.10.2022 passed by the learned Labour Court whereby the writ petitioner was removed from service on 11.05.1998 on certain charges of having violated the rule of issue and start and issued the un-punched tickets as well as altered the figures in the statistical report. The learned writ Court in its order dated 04.11.2013 while setting aside the order of removal held him entitled to back wages, continuity of service and attendant benefits. However, he was imposed penalty of withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect. That order of the learned writ Court was implemented by APSRTC vide order dated 20.07.2009 regularizing his services with effect from 01.07.2009. That led to filing of Writ Petition No.27661 of 2016 wherein the writ petitioner sought regularization of his services with effect from 01.09.1999 instead of 01.07.2009 at par with his colleagues and fixation of his pay with notional increments for the period he was out of service including the difference of back wages etc. That Writ Petition was decided by the learned writ Court on 06.06.2022 taking note of the fact that in earlier Writ Petition No.27668 of 2005, the writ petitioner had been reinstated into service with continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits, but, the regularization of his services was done with effect from 01.07.2009. That Writ Petition was decided by the learned writ Court on 06.06.2022 taking note of the fact that in earlier Writ Petition No.27668 of 2005, the writ petitioner had been reinstated into service with continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits, but, the regularization of his services was done with effect from 01.07.2009. Therefore, the learned writ Court held that the writ petitioner should be treated as on duty from the date of his appointment and he was eligible for the respective pay revisions and also for regularization at par with his colleagues and for grant of notional increments from the date of his removal from service to the date of his reinstatement. Against the said order dated 06.06.2022, the Corporation preferred a Writ Appeal, being W.A.No.684 of 2022, which was withdrawn with liberty to the Corporation to file a review petition, vide order dated 21.10.2022. The Review I.A.No.2 of 2023 was dismissed on 05.01.2024 which has been made the subject matter of challenge in Writ Appeal No.1181 of 2024. 3. The narration of events shows that the challenge in Writ Appeal No.1181 of 2024 was made to the reviewed judgment but the delay has been counted from the date of the order dated 06.06.2022 passed by the learned writ Court in Writ Petition No.27661 of 2016. Taking note of these facts, on 25.08.2025, learned counsel for the Corporation was allowed time to file an amendment application to challenge the order passed in the Writ Petition. The amendment application is said to have been filed on 09.09.2025 and returned with certain defects by the stamp reporter on 10.09.2025. That rectified amendment application has not yet been re-presented. 4. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the Corporation has sought short time to re-present the rectified review petition. 5. Other connected Writ Appeal No.16 of 2025 has been preferred by the writ petitioner against the order dated 06.06.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.27661 of 2016 which suffers from a delay of 873 days. In this Writ Appeal, the writ petitioner has also sought consequential arrears of pay and other benefits from the date of his reinstatement into service in addition to the relief granted by the learned writ Court vide order dated 06.06.2022 in Writ Petition No.27661 of 2016. 6. In this Writ Appeal, the writ petitioner has also sought consequential arrears of pay and other benefits from the date of his reinstatement into service in addition to the relief granted by the learned writ Court vide order dated 06.06.2022 in Writ Petition No.27661 of 2016. 6. In Writ Appeal No.1181 of 2024, the delay is reckoned from the date of expiry of 30 days period from the date of passing of the order in the Writ Petition. The same has been filed with a delay of 464 days in October, 2024. Even if the period for preferring the appeal is discounted, the same would be few months less as W.A.No.684 of 2022 was withdrawn on 21.10.2022 itself. The time consumed in preferring Review I.A.No.2 of 2023 in Writ Petition No.27661 of 2016 and dismissal of the same on 05.01.2024 even if discounted would also not improve the case of the Corporation on the point of delay since Writ Appeal No.1181 of 2024 has been filed in October, 2024. The chronology of facts taken note in the earlier part of this order shows that the learned writ Court in its order dated 04.11.2013 in Writ Petition No.27668 of 2005 had not only set aside the order of removal but also granted the benefit of reinstatement into service with continuity, back wages and attendant benefits. Since the writ petitioner’s services were regularized with effect from 01.07.2009 only, he had the occasion to prefer Writ Petition No.27661 of 2016. The learned writ Court after taking note of the order dated 04.11.2013 passed in previous Writ Petition No.27668 of 2005, deemed it proper to direct the Corporation to treat the reinstatement of the writ petitioner from an anterior date i.e., the date of removal from service with benefits of notional increments. As such, there does not appear any error in the order dated 06.06.2022 passed by the learned writ Court in Writ Petition No.27661 of 2016. The writ petitioner has got substantial benefits of reinstatement into service with continuity and back wages and in the second round of W.P.No.27661 of 2016, he has also got the benefit of regularization from the date of removal from service to the date of reinstatement. We do not wish to make any comment on the merits of the case of the Corporation and the writ petitioner any further. 7. We do not wish to make any comment on the merits of the case of the Corporation and the writ petitioner any further. 7. This Court has taken pains to delineate the narration of dates and events to show that there has been no diligence in preferring the appeals within a reasonable time despite the exception for the period in favour of the Corporation which it pursued the Writ Appeal and also the Review I.A. Moreover, the lack of seriousness of the Corporation in pursuing this appeal is also evident. Even after granting indulgence on 25.08.2025 to file an amendment application to challenge the order passed in the Writ Petition, such an amendment application was filed on 09.09.2025, but, it was returned due to certain defects, on 10.09.2025. However, the same has not been re-presented till date. 8. I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.A.No.1181 of 2024 seeking condonation of delay is therefore dismissed. Consequently, Writ Appeal No.1181 of 2024 is dismissed. 9. I.A. No.1 of 2025 in W.A.No.16 of 2025 preferred by the writ petitioner is also dismissed on the ground of huge and unexplained delay of 873 days. Consequently, Writ Appeal No.16 of 2025 is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.