THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 21947 of 1999 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted by four individuals seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring that they are entitled to have their services regularized. The case of the writ petitioners is that for each Electrical Revenue Office (E.R.O.), three posts of Watchman have been sanctioned. Instead of filling up these posts of Watchman on regular basis, the respondents are engaging the services of eligible persons through the agency of contractor. It is asserted that the writ petitioners have been working for more than ten years as Watchmen and they have all put in nearly 20 years of service by now. Periodically, the respondents have been regularizing the services against various varieties of posts, but they are continuing the writ petitioners without regularizing their services. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 1478 of 1999, wherein it is held as under: “ The learned counsel for the appellant states that the category of watchmen has not been abolished. The appellants have not been employed as contract Labour for ad hoc, essential or urgent purposes with fixed period. They were appointed regularly. The Corporation cannot be permitted to employ contract labour against a regular post especially when the work is of perennial nature. Nothing has been pointed out that any conscious decision has been taken employing the contract labour against the permanent posts of watchmen. The Corporation, having allowed them to continue for 10 long years and after kindling their hope that they are in fact working with the Corporation, now cannot be permitted to proceed against them taking shelter of a statutory provision of he Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act, 1970 in order to dwell in unfair labour practice. Concedingly, for illiterate labourers from unorganized sector, for whom the employment means only a question of two times meals would not be able to make out a distinction between the words ‘contract labour’ and ‘direct employee’. Even assuming that they can make out a distinction, still being the unorganized labour, seeking employment, they cannot dictate terms to the employer. The respondent- authorities cannot be permitted to take a callous attitude in such a situation. Thus, in totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice demand that the Corporation would consider the cases of appellants for their absorption and regularization as Watch and Ward/Security Guards in the corporation in accordance with the rules and regulations and schemes floated by the respondents especially in view of the decision of the Supreme Court stated above. In view of the observations made above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The respondent- authorities are directed to consider the cases of the appellants for absorption and regularization as Watch and Ward/Security Guards within a period of three months from today especially in view of the fact that the appellants have become over aged after serving the respondent for about 11 long years.” In the counter-affidavit filed by the Assistant Secretary (Legal) on behalf of the respondents, in paragraph 1, it is specifically admitted that each ERO has got sanctioned strength of three watchmen, but however, the counter-affidavit proceeds to state that normally these posts are being filled up by the dependants of the deceased employees. No such policy decision has been placed to show that the posts of Watchman or Security Guard shall be filled in exclusively by the dependants of the deceased employees. When once it is conceded in principle that there are three posts of Watchman sanctioned for each ERO, it is incumbent for the respondents to take an appropriate decision in the matter and consider regularizing the services of the writ petitioners against such vacancies. There cannot be a policy decision that the dependants of the deceased employee should be appointed invariably as Watchmen alone. It could be that the post of Watchman is one such which can be offered to the dependants. Therefore, I consider the decision of the respondents that the service of the writ petitioners cannot be regularized against the sanctioned posts of Watchman as they are generally or normally filled up by the dependants of the deceased employees, is not a valid or sustainable ground. In these facts and circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to take up the case of the writ petitioners and other similarly placed employees for regularization against the vacant posts of Watchman/Security Guard at Electricity Revenue Offices. Let a decision in this regard be taken and communicated to the petitioners within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 11th August 2010 ksld