IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1269 of 2009 Between: R. Vijaya Lakshmi W/o. Srinivasa Chary R/o. Lakshmi Narasapuram, Pulluru (Post) Mylavaram Mandal, Krishna District and another. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by The District Collector Machilipatnam, Krishna District and three others. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.M.N.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.M.PRABHAKAR RAO The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN} HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.1269 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to function as Customer Service Providers for distribution of benefits under Social Security Pension Scheme and National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. The petitioners sought for invalidation of order dated 29-12-2008 issued by respondent No.2. 2. In order to ensure proper distribution of benefits under Social Security Pension Scheme and National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme undertaken by the State Government, a mechanism has been evolved by the State Government, by which, customer service providers were envisaged vide circular dated 17- 05-2008 of the Commissioner, Rural Development, Hyderabad. The job of selection of customer service providers was entrusted to the identified branch (Axis Bank) and all the service transactions will be carried out through these customer service providers. Specific procedure is prescribed in the selection of these personnel. 3. It is admitted fact that the petitioners were selected as customer service providers by the Fino Company which is the service provider and the wages are being paid by the said service provider in collaboration with the Axis Bank through which, the Smart Cards will be distributed. The petitioners were appointed for providing customer services for Morsumilli and Polluru villages of Mylavaram Mandal, respectively. By the impugned order, respondent No.2 informed the service provider viz., Fino Company, Viziawada/Hyderabad that due to administrative inconvenience, they have decided to temporarily halt distribution of Smart Cards for Mursumilli and Polluru villages. 4. While the petitioners alleged mala fides in the move of respondent No.2, in the counter affidavit filed by the Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Krishna at Machilipatnam, it is, inter alia, stated that as the petitioners are not being allowed to execute their task, and due to cropping up of law and order problem, the District Administration decided to temporarily halt the procedure of distribution of Social Security Pensions through Smart Cards and ordered to continue manual distribution until further orders by entrusting the said work to the local village revenue officers. 5. Though the petitioners are not appointed to public posts, as rightly pointed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that they are being engaged after due selection process in connection with distribution of State largess, any action taken by the respondents in dealing with the petitioners shall be proper and conform to fair-play. 6. The averments in the counter affidavit that the petitioners are not allowed to execute their task due to cropping up of law and order problem are too vague. It is not elaborated therein as to who is preventing the petitioners from executing their task and what are the instances of law and order problems, which purportedly arose in that regard. Moreover, in the impugned order, it is clearly stated that the distribution of Smart Cards in the said two villages is temporarily halted. In the counter affidavit, it is candidly admitted that they are being distributed through local village officers. So long as the petitioners’ services are not terminated, it is not permissible for the respondents to bypass them and entrust the work to others. 7. In paragraph-7 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the matter is under probe and the Additional Project Director (Lands) IKP DRDA, Krishna, was asked to enquire into the matter and submit his report. Respondent No.2 is directed to call for the said report, if not already received by him and take a final decision. It is made clear that so long as the appointment of petitioners 1 and 2 as customers service providers continues to exist, respondent No.2 shall undertake the job through them. If it is found that there is difficulty in their continuity of service, he shall issue notice to the petitioners indicating the reasons therefor and inviting the objections from them. After considering the objections from the petitioners, respondent No.2 shall take a final decision, on the issue of continuing the petitioners and entrust the job to them. Respondent No.2 shall complete this exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The Writ Petition is disposed of subject to above directions. No costs. _______________________ Date: 22-04-2009 C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J KVR