THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1808 OF 2004 DATED 2ND FEBRUARY, 2010 BETWEEN G.Linga Reddy … Petitioner and The Chief Engineer, Northern Zone, Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Warangal, A.P. And Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.1808 OF 2004 ORDER: The petitioner, an Assistant Lineman in the Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited (APCPDCL), challenges its action in not promoting him on par with his juniors as per the Settlement dated 22.08.1985. He seeks a consequential direction to the APCPDCL to promote him as a Lineman by considering his past service on par with his juniors. The petitioner initially entered into the service of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board as casual labour. As per the Settlement dated 22.08.1985 arrived at between the Electricity Board and its workmen, the Board agreed to absorb 3650 casual labour against regular posts as and when they arise, subject to their suitability as per the Rules. The case of the petitioner however was not considered on the ground that he had crossed the age of 25 years. Aggrieved thereby, he filed Writ Petition No.7264 of 1989 before this Court. The said writ petition, along with writ petitions filed by other similarly situated casual labour, was allowed vide common order dated 20.08.1996 passed by a Division Bench of this Court, whereby the Board was directed to consider the cases of the petitioners therein for appointment on regular basis without disqualifying them on the ground that they had crossed the age of 25 years by the date of their initial engagement as casual labour. The order of the Division Bench was confirmed by the Supreme Court on 12.01.1998. However, upon a review filed by the Electricity Board, the Supreme Court by its order dated 15.03.1999 clarified that though the Rules of the Board imposed an age restriction of 25 years for appointment to any category, the Settlement arrived at by the Board with its workers posited that all 3650 casual labour would be given the benefit of regularization without mentioning their eligibility as per Rules. The Supreme Court accordingly opined that owing to the peculiar wording of the Settlement which bound the parties, the order of the High Court could not be found fault with. It is on the basis of these orders that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Lineman in the Electricity Board on 04.10.1997. Thereafter, his services were confirmed as such in that category and he was also given promotion to the post of Assistant Lineman. His grievance in the present case is that casual labour who were junior to him at the time of their initial appointment were given further promotions while he was overlooked. He accordingly seeks the interference of this Court to redress this grievance. However, the counter affidavit filed by the APCPDCL, being the successor-in-interest of the erstwhile Electricity Board so far as the petitioner is concerned, reflects that the casual labour who were juniors to the petitioner at the time of their initial recruitment were, in fact, appointed in the year 1987 itself. Their cases did not attract the age disqualification which was applied to the petitioner. Therefore, they became senior to the petitioner and were accordingly given promotions as per their seniority. It is asserted that the petitioner did not raise any objection with regard to their seniority earlier. In the light of the aforestated facts and circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner’s appointment as a Junior Lineman on regular basis was only consequent upon the order of this Court passed in the year 1996, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the years 1998 and 1999. The actual appointment of the petitioner pursuant to the order of this Court was in October, 1997. He cannot therefore claim parity with or seniority over those casual labour who were actually appointed in the year 1987 itself pursuant to the Settlement arrived at by and between the Electricity Board and its workers. The writ petition is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 2ND FEBRUARY, 2010. VGSR