IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 2 1 OF 2007. Between: The Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Tirupati, Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director & 2-Ors. …. Appellant V/s. G. Siva Prasad, s/o G.Venkateswara Rao Aged about 38 years, R/o 6/556, Railway Station Road, Rajampeta, Kadapa district.& 2-Ors. …. Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Sri G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondents: Sri V.VENKATARAMANA THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 2 1 OF 2007. J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon'ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari) This writ appeal is filed by the respondents in W.P.No. 22580 of 2006 aggrieved by the order dated 01- 11-2006 passed by a learned single Judge directing the appellants to consider the issue of extending the benefit of age relaxation at the time of selection of the writ petitioners - respondents herein to the posts of Junior Linemen on contract basis in terms of the note appended to Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Department Operation and Subordinate Service Rules. 2. It is contended before us that the respondents, who are working as contract labour in the appellant-company, have applied to the posts of Junior Linemen pursuant to the notification issued by the appellants, but since they are over aged, inasmuch as all of them are above 35 years, in terms of the notification dated 6-6-2006, they are ineligible to apply for the said posts. The grievance of the respondents – writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that inasmuch as they were working for the last ten years and discharging their duties in work charged establishment on daily wage basis, Rule-5 of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Department Operation and Subordinate Service Rules (for brevity “the Rules”), the authorities have the power to relax the Rule in respect of the respondents to the extent of period served in work charged establishment on daily wage basis. The matter was keenly contested before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge, relying upon Rule 5 of the Rules directed the appellant-company to consider the issue of extending the benefit of age relaxation in terms of the note appended to Rule 5 of the Rules, as pleaded by the respondents, at the time of selection for the posts notified. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Appeal is preferred. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant-company has vehemently contended that Rule 5 of the Rules have no application in this particular case for the reason that those Rules are framed wayback in 1948 and A.P. Electricity Department Operations Subordinate Service Rules have come into force after the Electricity Board had come into existence and the present incumbents – respondents are governed by the said Rules, which are purported to have been framed under section 79 (c) of the Electricity Act, 1948. It is also contended before us that they have adopted only APSEB Service Regulations and they have not adopted Rule 5 of the Rules and after the advent of Electricity Board and framing of A.P. Electricity Department Operations Subordinate Service Rules, Rule 5 of the Rules cannot be made applicable to the employees of the Electricity Board, as they are not being adopted inasmuch as they are governed by a separate set of Rules, as stated above, and hence the contention of the respondents that they are entitled for relaxation by application of Rule 5 of the Rules cannot stand to judicial scrutiny. 4. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondents have contended that in view of the Rules as framed under the A.P. Electricity Department Operations Subordinate Service Rules, Rule 5 makes it obligatory on the part of the authorities to relax the age limit to the extent of the period which they worked in work charged establishment on daily wage basis and, therefore, the respondents are have a right in seeking the relief of relaxation of age banking upon Rule 5 of the Rules. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents as well. 6. It is not in dispute that all the respondents herein are aged more than 35 years, which is the upper age limit in terms of the notification dated 6.6.2006. The respondents based their relief on the ‘note’ appended to Rule 5 of the Rules which empowers the authorities to relax the age of 25 years to the extent of the period served, if any, in work charged establishment on daily wages. We have gone through Rule 5 of the Rules, which had came into force with effect from 10-1- 1948, basing on which, the learned single Judge passed the order impugned. Admittedly, the APSEB Service Regulations have come into effect after establishment of Electricity Board and, therefore, it cannot be read into the A.P. Electricity Department Operations Subordinate Service Rules. When it is specific case of the appellants that they have adopted only APSEB Service Regulations, a duty is cast on the respondents to show that 5 Rule of the Rules has application in their case, but nothing is demonstrated as to how Rule 5 of the Rules has application. In the absence of any such material placed on record, we are of the opinion that the appellants are right in contending that when they have adopted only the APSEB Service Regulations and did not adopt A.P. Electricity Department Operations Subordinate Service Rules, the learned Single Judge is not right in placing reliance on Rule 5 of the Rules and directing the appellants to extend the benefit of age relaxation, as pleaded by the respondents. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it goes without saying that the appellants have adopted only APSEB Service Regulations and the A.P. Electricity Department Operations Subordinate Service Rules will have no application to the present set of respondents, who are the writ petitioners. 7. Under the above circumstances, the order passed by the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. 8. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondents - writ petitioners has submitted that liberty be reserved to them to agitate their rights with reference to the restriction of age and relaxation thereof in the notification, whenever such situation arises. 9. Accordingly, liberty is granted to the respondents- writ petitioners to agitate their rights claiming age relaxation. __________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI _______________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 04-XI-2009. I s L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 2 1 OF 2007. Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari Computer No. 43 Date of the Order: 04-XI-2009 Court Master : I s L