Telangana State Road Transport ... vs A.Srinivas
2026 Latest Caselaw 576 Tel

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 576 Tel
Judgement Date : 9 April, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Telangana State Road Transport ... vs A.Srinivas on 9 April, 2026

      IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                      AT HYDERABAD

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
                                     AND
            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

                            I.A.No.2 of 2025
                                 in/and
                       WRIT APPEAL No.339 of 2025

                             DATED: 09.04.2026

Between:
Telangana State Road Transport Corporation,
Represented by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan,
RTC X Roads, Hyderabad & 2 others
                                                                    ... Appellants
                                     AND

A.Srinivas S/o. A.Agaiah
                                                                   ... Respondent

JUDGMENT:

Mr. G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. U. Shanti

Bhushan Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

Mr. V.Narasimha Goud, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellants on the delay condonation

application made through I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.A.No.339 of 2025.

3. An objection thereto has also been filed by the respondent/writ petitioner.

4. The instant appeal is directed against the impugned order dated

27.12.2023 passed by the learned writ Court in W.P.No.36859 of 2013 directing

regularisation of the respondent's service on par with similarly situated persons

with effect from 01.07.2009 with all consequential benefits after setting aside

the order dated 10.04.2013 whereby the appellants refused to regularise the

respondent's services. Though the impugned order is dated 27.12.2023, the

appeal has only been filed on 15.03.2025 after a delay of 412 days. The only

explanation in the affidavit of the delay condonation application is at para 17,

which is quoted hereunder:

"17. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court has passed order on 27.12.2023 in W.P.No.36859 of 2013. After receipt of the copy of the order, opinion of the Standing Counsel was taken with regard to implements of the order. After taking opinion of the Standing Counsel, a decision was taken to prefer an appeal. Accordingly, the records pertaining to the case was sent to the then Standing Counsel for drafting the writ appeal. However, the case file misplaced and was later found to be mixed up with other case bundles. After the case file was traced and the writ appeal was being drafted. In the meanwhile new Standing Counsel was appointed to the Corporation. All the case files including the case files of the present case files were transferred from old Standing Counsel Sri A. Srinivas Reddy to the office of the new Standing Counsel Sri A.Shanthi Bhushan. Thereafter, the new standing counsel had taken steps for the drafting and filing of the new writ appeal. Due to the above reasons, delay occurred in filing the present Writ Appeal and thus, there is delay of 412 days in filing the present appeal. The delay is neither willful nor wanton, but for the reasons, as stated above. The appellants have fair chances of succeeding in the appeal. Unless, the Hon'ble Court condones the delay of 412 days in preferring this appeal, the appellants would be put to irreparable loss and injury. I crave leave of this Hon'ble Court, to read the accompanying Memorandum of Grounds, as part and parcel of the present affidavit."

5. Apart from the usual grounds of obtaining opinion from the learned

Standing Counsel, drafting of the writ appeal and the plea of the file being

misplaced in the process, there is no other sufficient ground made out. The

appellant has also taken a plea of the change in the Standing Counsel.

Respondent/writ petitioner has taken strong objection to the prayer for

condonation of delay.

6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the

interlocutory application specially statements made at para 17 quoted above, we

find that there is no worthwhile explanation to explain a huge and inordinate

delay of 412 days in preferring the instant appeal. As such we are not inclined

to condone the delay.

7. Therefore, I.A.No.2 of 2025 is rejected. Consequently, the Writ Appeal is