{"id":41645,"date":"2004-01-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-01-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-apsrtc-vs-p-lakshmoji-rao-ors-on-22-january-2004"},"modified":"2018-05-03T23:32:58","modified_gmt":"2018-05-03T18:02:58","slug":"the-divisional-manager-apsrtc-vs-p-lakshmoji-rao-ors-on-22-january-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-apsrtc-vs-p-lakshmoji-rao-ors-on-22-january-2004","title":{"rendered":"The Divisional Manager, Apsrtc & … vs P. Lakshmoji Rao & Ors on 22 January, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Divisional Manager, Apsrtc & … vs P. Lakshmoji Rao & Ors on 22 January, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: P V Reddi<\/div>\n
Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, P. Venkatarama Reddi.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2455 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nThe Divisional Manager, APSRTC & Ors.\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nP. Lakshmoji Rao & Ors.\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/01\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nS. RAJENDRA BABU & P. VENKATARAMA REDDI.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
With<\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 3017, 5881 & 4855 of 1999<\/p>\n
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.\n<\/p>\n
These cases involving the issue as to the effective date
\nof regular appointment and seniority unfold certain
\ndisturbing featuresnon application of mind by the High
\nCourt to the crucial aspects of the case, vagueness of the
\ndirections issued, the deficiency of pleadings and material
\nplaced on record by the contending parties and above all the
\ndefault of the appellant-Corporation in allowing other similar
\norders becoming final while contesting certain others
\nincluding the present matters.\n<\/p>\n
The undisputed facts common to all these cases may
\nbe noticed:\n<\/p>\n
Pursuant to the advertisements made by the appellant-
\nCorporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘APSRTC’), the
\nrespondents were selected as conductors and appointed on
\ndaily-wages initially for a certain period of time and
\nthereafter their services were extended on the same terms
\nand ultimately regularized after a year or two. They were
\nplaced on time scale of pay and their seniority was counted
\nfrom the date of such regularization. Long afterwards, the
\nrespondents filed writ petitions contending that their
\nservices ought to have been regularized from an anterior
\ndate i.e., from the date of their initial appointment on daily-
\nwage basis and the service benefits should be granted
\naccordingly. This prayer was practically granted by the High
\nCourt with a rider that they should have completed one year
\nof continuous service as defined in Section 25B of the
\nIndustrial Disputes Act. There was practically no discussion
\non the merits in any of these cases either in the judgments
\nunder appeal or the earlier judgments which were followed
\nin the instant cases. All the writ appeals were disposed of at
\nthe admission stage itself. One more fact to be noticed is
\nthat no averment has been made nor any material placed
\nbefore us to establish that the judgments which were
\nfollowed in these cases or similar judgments in certain other
\ncases have been contested by APSRTC by filing LPAs or
\nSLPs.\n<\/p>\n
Now, we will advert briefly to the facts in each of these
\nappeals.\n<\/p>\n
Civil Appeal No. 2455 of 1999
\n\tPursuant to the advertisement issued by APSRTC
\ncalling for the applications for the posts of Conductors in
\nVisakhapatnam, Vizianagaram and Srikakulam regions, the
\nrespondents were selected and appointed as Conductors on
\ndaily-wage basis in October, 1987. They joined the service
\non various dates between 16.10.1987 and 12.12.1987. The
\nservices of the respondents were regularized with effect
\nfrom 15.2.1989. It is to be mentioned that the order
\nappointing them on daily-wages and on regular basis is not
\non record. The respondents filed writ petition in the year
\n1997 in the High Court of A.P. alleging that certain persons
\nemployed by the private bus operators and absorbed into
\nCorporation service after nationalization of the routes,
\nthough appointed later on i.e., after 12.12.1987, were
\nshown as seniors to the respondents in the seniority list (the
\ndate of which is not mentioned). Thus, according to the
\nrespondents, they were made juniors to the displaced
\nemployees who were appointed subsequently. It does not
\nappear that any counter-affidavit was filed in the Writ
\npetition. The stand of the appellant as seen from the
\ngrounds in the Writ appeal is that the respondents were
\nappointed on daily-wage basis after selection in order to
\ncope up with the peak season demands between January
\nand July and their services were regularized as and when
\nvacancies arose. The details of the vacancies that had arisen
\nwere however not spelt out. The reason for offering
\nappointment to the respondents on regular basis with effect
\nfrom 15.2.1989 is not specifically mentioned either in the
\nmemorandum of Writ appeal or the SLP. The learned single
\nJudge allowed the writ petition of the 50 respondents
\ndirecting regularization in the posts of Conductors
\n“reckoning continuous service of the writ petitioners as
\nenvisaged in Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act for
\nthe purpose of benefits of service”. On appeal by APSRTC,
\nthe Division Bench dismissed the same on the ground that
\n“on the appellants’ own showing, the matter is covered in
\nterms of the earlier order in writ appeal No. 705 of 1995”.
\nWe will be adverting to the order in W.A. 705 of 1995 a little
\nlater.\n<\/p>\n
Civil Appeal Nos. 3017 and 5881 of 1999
\n\tThere are three respondents in these appeals.  The two
\nrespondents in Civil Appeal No. 3017 of 1999 were
\nappointed as casual Conductors on 15.12.1983 on daily-
\nwage basis after due selection in Cuddapah region of
\nAPSRTC and they reported for duty on 19.12.1983. Their
\nservices were regularized with effect from 6.4.1985. The
\nrespondents filed the writ petitions in the year 1998 seeking
\nregularization with effect from 19.12.1983 instead of
\n6.4.1985 and praying for all benefits of service with
\nreference to the said date of their initial appointment. The
\nrespondent in Civil Appeal No. 5881 of 1999 was appointed
\non 3.4.1984 as a casual Conductor in Cuddapah region after
\ndue selection and his services were regularized with effect
\nfrom 21.3.1986. He prayed for a similar direction to treat
\nthe effective date of regularization as 3.4.1984 instead of
\n21.3.1986. The learned single Judge dismissed both the writ
\npetitions (filed in the year 1998) on the ground of
\nunexplained delay in approaching the Court and non joinder
\nof necessary parties whose seniority was likely to be
\naffected. On appeal by the writ petitioners, the Division
\nBench set aside the order of the learned single Judge and
\ndirected the Corporation to consider the cases of the writ
\npetitioners for regularization “notionally, with effect from the
\ndate they were entitled to” with a further observation; “it is
\nmade clear that the appellant should be given the same
\nbenefits which have been granted by the respondents in
\nrespect of similarly situated persons”. The learned Judges of
\nthe Division Bench noticed that in writ petition No. 26111 of
\n1998, which was disposed of by another learned single
\nJudge, there was no opposition by the Corporation and
\ntherefore it was not fair on the part of the Corporation to
\nraise the technical ground of latches in respect of similarly
\nsituated employees. It may be mentioned that in W.P.No.
\n26111 of 1998, the learned single Judge directed
\nregularization with effect from the date of initial
\nappointment purportedly following the decision of Division
\nBench in APSRTC Vs P.T. Rao [1998 2 ACT 447]. There
\nwas in fact no concession on merits in that case. It is not
\nknown whether any writ appeal was filed against the order
\nin W.P.No. 26111 of 1998.\n<\/p>\n
Civil Appeal No. 4855 of 1999
\n\tThe four respondents in this appeal were recruited on
\ndaily-wage basis as casual Conductors after due selection
\nand offered appointment in Governorpet depot of
\nVijayawada region in June\/July, 1991. Their services were
\nregularized in January\/August, 1994. Claiming regularization
\non completion of 240 days of continuous service and placing
\nreliance on the decision in Writ Appeal No. 705 of 1995, they
\nfiled writ petition in the year 1997. The writ petition was
\ndisposed of on 1.10.1997 with a direction to the respondents
\nto consider the case of the petitioners for regularization as
\nper the judgment in W.A. No. 705 of 1995. On appeal to the
\nDivision Bench, the writ appeal was dismissed in limine by a
\nnon-speaking order. In the writ appeal, an affidavit was filed
\nby the Chief Law Officer of APSRTC. It is stated therein that
\non account of large scale nationalization of bus routes
\nbetween 1986 and 1990 and the heavy passenger traffic
\nduring the peak season, the APSRTC resorted to recruitment
\nof Conductors and Drivers on daily-wage basis in the hope of
\nabsorbing them on regular basis later on depending on the
\navailability of the sanctioned posts. Keeping the anticipated
\nregularization in view, they were chosen on the basis of
\nselection. It is further stated that the regularization is done
\naccording to the prescribed norms envisaged in the
\nmemorandum of settlement dated 28.4.1994 entered into
\nunder Section 12(3) of the I.D. Act. For those employed
\nbetween December 1991 and December 1994, the agreed
\ndate of regularization as per the settlement, falls between
\n31.12.1995 and 31.7.1997. The deponent of the affidavit
\nalso relied on the provisions of A.P. Act 2 of 1993 which
\nseem to place restrictions on regularization of certain
\ncategories of employees. It was then pointed out that
\nregularization from the date of initial appointment on daily-
\nwages would cause administrative problems and upset the
\nsettled seniority.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt is seen from various judgments placed on record that
\nthe genesis of this litigation relating to the correct date of
\nregularization is traceable to writ petition No. 12132 of
\n1984. That writ petition was filed by the daily-wage Drivers
\nappointed in June, 1983 after a process of selection. Their
\nservices were terminated on 30th June, 1984 but they were
\nreappointed in July, 1984 on the same terms. Then they
\nfiled the said writ petition in which they sought for a
\ndirection that they must be treated as Drivers on regular
\nbasis from the dates of their initial appointment. Evidently,
\nthe services of the petitioners therein were actually not
\nregularized. A learned single Judge disposed of the writ
\npetition on 20.6.1988 with a direction to the respondents to
\n“declare the petitioners to be in service on regular basis
\nfrom the dates of their joining duty and give consequential
\nbenefits”. The only reason given by the learned Judge is
\ncontained in the following paragraph which we quote:
\n“The petitioners were selected by a Committee on
\nthe basis of their eligibility and they have been
\nappointed on June 10, 1983. Therefore, though
\nthere appears the term “on temporary basis” “on
\ndaily wages” the fact remains that they have been
\ndischarging the duties on regular basis.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThus, the performance of duties carried out by regular
\nemployees, was taken to be the basis for directing
\nregularization. The fact that they underwent a process of
\nselection was also relied on. Insofar as the decision purports
\nto lay down a proposition of service law that the employees
\nselected on daily-wage basis after selection automatically
\nbecome regular employees from day one if they perform the
\nduties similar to regular employees, it is utterly untenable.
\nIn the absence of any service rule entitling the employees
\nrecruited on daily-wages to get the status of regular
\nemployees with pay-scale from the very date of joining, it
\nwould be difficult to countenance such proposition especially
\nwhen there is no finding that the daily-wage employment
\nwas a ploy or a colourable device to postpone regularization
\nindefinitely. In State of Haryana Vs. Piara Singh [(1992)
\n4 SCC 118] this Court set aside the direction of the High
\nCourt to regularize the services of the ad hoc\/temporary
\nemployees who have worked for more than one year and
\nobserved that there can be no rule of thumb in such matters
\nand in any case, service for one year does not by itself
\nconfer a right of regularisation.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe next phase of litigation is writ petition No. 8070 of
\n1990. The order in W.P.No. 12232 of 1984 (referred to
\nsupra) was followed by another learned single Judge and a
\ndirection was issued to declare the petitioners as having
\nbeen regularly appointed from the respective dates of their
\njoining the post for which they were selected with all
\nconsequential benefits. It is not known whether the services
\nof the three writ petitioners therein were regularized by the
\ndate of filing the writ petition and whether they wanted the
\nbenefit of retrospective regularization.
\nThe APSRTC filed writ appeal against the order in
\nW.P.No. 8070 of 1990 and it was disposed of cursorily
\nwithout adverting to any issue on merits. The short order
\npassed by the Division Bench on 24.7.1995 reads as follows:
\n“Heard learned counsel for the appellant and
\nlearned counsel for the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
We do not think there is any mistake in the
\ndirection issued by the learned single Judge
\nexcept that a clarification is required to reckon the
\ndate of continuous appointment and thus
\nregularization in the post held by the petitioners
\nrespondents from the date of continuous
\nappointment for the purpose of both of
\nemoluments as well as seniority.\n<\/p>\n
We accordingly clarify that the date of initial
\nappointment as indicated in the order of the
\nlearned single Judge will be read as the date of
\ncontinuous appointment as defined under Section
\n25B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Such
\ncontinuous service of the petitioner\/respondents
\nshall be counted for all benefits in the service in
\naccordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
With the clarification as above, the appeal is
\ndismissed.”\n<\/p>\n
This order was followed in most of the writ petitions and writ
\nappeals including the orders under appeal.
\nIt is difficult to comprehend the ratio of the above
\ndecision. While purporting to clarify the order passed in the
\nwrit petition by the learned single Judge, the Division Bench
\nimported a totally alien concept of continuous service within
\nthe meaning of Section 25B of the I.D. Act which was for the
\nspecial purpose of applying the provisions as to lay off and
\nretrenchment contained in Chapter V-A of the Act. Moreover,
\nthe order in the writ appeal is as vague as it could be. The
\nexpression ‘date of continuous appointment’ makes no
\nsense. Even if it is taken that the said wording has been
\ninaccurately used for the words ‘continuous service’, still,
\nthe direction is unintelligible. Continuous service within the
\nmeaning of Section 25B for how long? Nothing has been
\nspecified.  In this state of things, in W.P. No. 24263 of 1998,
\na learned single Judge proceeded on the basis that as per
\nthe decision in W.A. 705\/1995, the employees were entitled
\nto seek regularization with effect from the date of initial
\nappointment, thus making the clarification given by the
\nDivision Bench virtually otiose.\n<\/p>\n
The problem was compounded by another Division
\nBench decision of the High Court in Writ Appeal No. 1108 of
\n1997 APSRTC Vs. P.T. Rao [1998 (2) ALT 447]. That
\nwas an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge
\ndirecting regularization keeping in view the directions given
\nin writ appeal No. 705 of 1995 (supra). The learned Judges
\nafter referring to the decision of this Court in State of
\nHaryana Vs. Piara Singh [AIR 1992 SC 2130] observed:
\n“Thus, it is clear that the High Court cannot issue
\na blanket direction to regularize the services of the
\nemployees on completion of a particular period. If
\nwe examine the cases of the respondents-\n<\/p>\n
workmen here in the light of the principles laid
\ndown by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana
\nVs. Piara Singh (supra), we have to hold that the
\norder of the learned single Judge requires
\nmodification.”\n<\/p>\n
Having said so, curiously, the following order was
\npassed in the next paragraph which is the operative part of
\nthe judgment:\n<\/p>\n
“Therefore, the order of the learned single Judge
\nis modified to the effect that the respondents-
\nworkmen are entitled to the regularization of their
\nservices from the date of their initial appointment
\nto such posts on completion of 240 working days.
\nIf there are number of claimants seeking
\nregularization, the same can be done only in a
\nphased manner. In so far as the claim of the
\nworkmen for arrears or backwages is concerned,
\nhaving regard to the facts and circumstances of
\nthis case, we hold that the respondents-workmen
\nare not entitled to the same.\n<\/p>\n
With the above modification, the Writ Appeal is
\ndisposed of.”\n<\/p>\n
The direction given in paragraph 5 is not quite
\nconsistent with what was held in the previous para of the
\njudgment after referring to the law laid down in Piara
\nSingh’s case.  The concept of ‘continuous service for a
\nperiod of one year’ as per Section 25B of the I.D. Act has
\nbeen imported by this Division Bench also.  Moreover, it is
\ndifficult to reconcile the two directions in para 5 (contained
\nin the first two sentences).  Perhaps, what the learned
\nJudges meant was that the employees’ claim for
\nregularization should be considered on  completion of 240
\nworking days and if they are otherwise eligible, they should
\nbe absorbed on regular basis to the extent of vacancies
\navailable. In the event of such regularization, it would take
\neffect from the date of initial appointment.
\nIt is difficult to follow the logic or the reason behind the
\nlaw laid down by the Division Bench. If the regularization
\nhas to take place in a phased manner subject to availability
\nof vacancies etc., the question of according regular status to
\nthe employees right from the date of initial appointment on
\ndaily-wages does not arise. Moreover, if the services of
\nrespondents in the writ appeal have already been
\nregularized and they claim regular status from the date of
\ninitial appointment, the High Court should have addressed
\nitself to the specific question whether the regularization after
\nsome period of daily wage service was legally correct and
\nrecorded a finding thereon. The observations made and the
\ndirections given have only added to the dimension of
\ncontroversy rather than solving the problem. How and in
\nwhat manner the said judgment in [1998 (2) ALT 447],
\nwhich is sought to be relied upon by the appellants, was
\nimplemented is not known. No details are available in this
\nregard.  However, it is difficult to construe the judgment in
\nthe said writ appeal as upholding the contention of the
\nappellants excepting the passing observation that the
\nregularization could be done in a phased manner.
\nIn the light of the above discussion, we are of the view
\nthat the law laid down or the directions given in various writ
\npetitions\/writ appeals are not legally sustainable for more
\nthan one reason. Firstly, wrong criterion based on Section
\n25B of I.D. Act was applied in case after case. Secondly, the
\nrespondents and other similarly situated employees
\napproached the Court under Article 226 long after their
\nregularization, thereby unsettling the settled position.
\nThirdly, on the facts of these cases, it is evident that the
\nservices of the employees who were recruited as Conductors
\nwere regularized within a reasonable time. The respondent-
\nemployees were therefore treated fairly. No service rule or
\nregulation or any other principle of law has been pressed
\ninto service by the respondents to claim regularization from
\nan anterior date i.e. right from the date of their initial
\nappointment as daily wage employees.\n<\/p>\n
For the above reasons, we should have, in the normal
\ncourse set aside the judgments under appeal and dismissed
\nthe writ petitions. However, there are certain facts which
\nstare at the appellants, that come in the way of these
\nappeals being allowed in toto. We have to take note of the
\nmaterial fact that the appellants failed to question the
\nadverse decisions by filing appeals at the appropriate time.
\nThey allowed many judgments to become final though they
\nrelated to employees of the same Region\/Division. For
\ninstance Writ Petition No. 33077 of 1997 filed by 26
\nConductors was disposed of on the same day on which Writ
\nPetition No. 33083 of 1997 (which is under appeal in C.A.No.
\n2455 of 1999) was disposed of. In the Writ Appeals which
\nhave given rise to C.A.Nos. 3017 of 1999 and 5881 of 1999,
\nreference has been made by the Division Bench to Writ
\nPetition No. 26111 of 1998 disposed of on 4.11.1998 in
\nwhich there were 30 petitioners. In the affidavit filed in the
\nHigh Court in Writ Petition No. 33083 of 1997 which has
\ngiven rise to C.A. No. 2455 of 1999, reference has also been
\nmade to two other writ petitions namely W.P.Nos. 31361 of
\n1996 and 14709 of 1996 decided on 19.4.1996 and
\n26.7.1996 respectively, wherein it was alleged that
\ndirections were given to regularize the services from the
\ndate of original appointment. Above all, it seems that the
\norders of the Division Bench passed in Writ Appeal Nos. 410
\nof 1997 and 1108 of 1997 (elaborately referred to supra)
\nseem to have become final.\n<\/p>\n
In view of this peculiar situation and in order to avoid
\nthe anomalies that might otherwise ensue, while we hold
\nthat the respondent-employees have failed to establish their
\nlegal right to get the status of regular employees right from
\nthe date of their initial appointment on daily wage basis and
\nthe respective dates of regularization assigned to the
\nrespondents cannot be legally faulted, we are inclined to
\nmould the relief in modification of the directions given in the
\njudgments under appeal and direct as follows:
\nIf any of the Conductors, junior to the respondents in
\nthe relevant seniority list of the concerned Division\/Region,
\nhave got the benefit of seniority and regularization OR are
\nentitled to get the same by virtue of the judgments that
\nhave become final, then the respondents who are seniors to
\nthem, shall be given the same benefit on the same principle.
\nWith these directions and observations, the Civil
\nAppeals are disposed of without costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Divisional Manager, Apsrtc & … vs P. Lakshmoji Rao & Ors on 22 January, 2004 Author: P V Reddi Bench: S. Rajendra Babu, P. Venkatarama Reddi. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2455 of 1999 PETITIONER: The Divisional Manager, APSRTC & Ors. RESPONDENT: P. Lakshmoji Rao & Ors. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/01\/2004 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41645","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Divisional Manager, Apsrtc & ... vs P. Lakshmoji Rao & Ors on 22 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-apsrtc-vs-p-lakshmoji-rao-ors-on-22-january-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Divisional Manager, Apsrtc & ... vs P. Lakshmoji Rao & Ors on 22 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-apsrtc-vs-p-lakshmoji-rao-ors-on-22-january-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-05-03T18:02:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-manager-apsrtc-vs-p-lakshmoji-rao-ors-on-22-january-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-manager-apsrtc-vs-p-lakshmoji-rao-ors-on-22-january-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Divisional Manager, Apsrtc & … vs P. Lakshmoji Rao & Ors on 22 January, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-03T18:02:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-manager-apsrtc-vs-p-lakshmoji-rao-ors-on-22-january-2004\"},\"wordCount\":3407,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-manager-apsrtc-vs-p-lakshmoji-rao-ors-on-22-january-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-manager-apsrtc-vs-p-lakshmoji-rao-ors-on-22-january-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-manager-apsrtc-vs-p-lakshmoji-rao-ors-on-22-january-2004\",\"name\":\"The Divisional Manager, Apsrtc & ... vs P. Lakshmoji Rao & Ors on 22 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-01-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-05-03T18:02:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-manager-apsrtc-vs-p-lakshmoji-rao-ors-on-22-january-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-manager-apsrtc-vs-p-lakshmoji-rao-ors-on-22-january-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-divisional-manager-apsrtc-vs-p-lakshmoji-rao-ors-on-22-january-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Divisional Manager, Apsrtc & … vs P. Lakshmoji Rao & Ors on 22 January, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Divisional Manager, Apsrtc & ... vs P. Lakshmoji Rao & Ors on 22 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-apsrtc-vs-p-lakshmoji-rao-ors-on-22-january-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Divisional Manager, Apsrtc & ... vs P. Lakshmoji Rao & Ors on 22 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-apsrtc-vs-p-lakshmoji-rao-ors-on-22-january-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-05-03T18:02:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-apsrtc-vs-p-lakshmoji-rao-ors-on-22-january-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-apsrtc-vs-p-lakshmoji-rao-ors-on-22-january-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Divisional Manager, Apsrtc & … vs P. Lakshmoji Rao & Ors on 22 January, 2004","datePublished":"2004-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-03T18:02:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-apsrtc-vs-p-lakshmoji-rao-ors-on-22-january-2004"},"wordCount":3407,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-apsrtc-vs-p-lakshmoji-rao-ors-on-22-january-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-apsrtc-vs-p-lakshmoji-rao-ors-on-22-january-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-apsrtc-vs-p-lakshmoji-rao-ors-on-22-january-2004","name":"The Divisional Manager, Apsrtc & ... vs P. Lakshmoji Rao & Ors on 22 January, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-01-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-05-03T18:02:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-apsrtc-vs-p-lakshmoji-rao-ors-on-22-january-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-apsrtc-vs-p-lakshmoji-rao-ors-on-22-january-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-divisional-manager-apsrtc-vs-p-lakshmoji-rao-ors-on-22-january-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Divisional Manager, Apsrtc & … vs P. Lakshmoji Rao & Ors on 22 January, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41645","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41645"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41645\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41645"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41645"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41645"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}