P. Rama Rao v. The Commissioner And Director Of Municipal Administration

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE M.GANGA RAO WRI T PETI TI ON No.41703 OF 2018 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The petitioner is the unsuccessful applicant in O.A.No.6305 of 2013 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. His prayer therein was to declare that he was entitled to regularization of his services in the category of Electrician in Bhimavaram Municipality from the date on which he completed five years of service in that category in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1320 dated 15.12.1981. He also sought a direction to the authorities to regularize his services with all consequential benefits in terms of the aforestated prayer. By order dated 10.11.2016, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. Aggrieved thereby, he filed the present writ petition on 14.11.2018.

The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition merely states that the petitioner was not well and could not take a decision as to whether he should challenge the order of the Tribunal and that is the reason why he took over two years to file the present writ petition. We however find from the record that this is not the only delay attributable to the petitioner. It is clear from the facts that the petitioner's services were regularized in the year 1991. If he had any grievance with regard to the authorities not regularizing his services from an earlier date in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1320 dated 15.12.1981, he ought to have taken steps immediately thereafter.

Sri K.L.N.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly concedes that except for making representations, the petitioner did not take any further steps.

It was only in the year 2013 that the petitioner chose to approach the Tribunal. Perusal of the order under challenge reflects that the Tribunal held against him on the issue of delay primarily. We find that the delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in seeking relief, if he had a redressable grievance as long back as in the year 1991, is fatal to his cause. We therefore find no grounds to interfere with the order under challenge.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

_________________ SANJAY KUMAR,J _________________ M. GANGA RAO, J Date: 19.11.2018 IBL