IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTHE DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.30455 of 2011 Between: J.Jagan Mohan Rao … Petitioner and The General Manager, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Mandamarri Area, Adilabad District and another. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.30455 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents that intentionally disengaging the petitioner as General Majdoor, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and direct the respondents to give the post of General Majdoor to the petitioner. The scope of the writ petition, wherein the petitioner sought for the said prayer, is limited, both the counsel consented for disposal of the writ petition. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner initially entered into service in the respondents’ Company in the year 1992 and worked as General Majdoor. While so, he along with others were terminated from service and questioning the said termination, they ﬁled W.P. No.24128 of 1996 and wherein this Court, eventually, while disposing of the said writ petition, directed the respondents therein to engage the petitioners therein as General Majdoor. While things stood thus, the petitioner was removed from service vide order dated 01.07.1999, with eﬀect from 02.07.1999 on the ground that he produced the fake medical certiﬁcate. Challenging the said removal order, the petitioner raised industrial dispute in I.D. No.38 of 2001 wherein the learned Tribunal, while setting aside the order of removal, passed award directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with back wages. Assailing which, the respondents ﬁled W.P. No.8504 of 2002 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 30.12.2010 upholding the award, dated 27.12.2001, passed in I.D. No.38 of 2001 in all respects except to the extent it awarded back wages. Accordingly, pursuant to the said order, the petitioner was reinstated into service but intentionally taking his services as Badiliﬁller instead of General Majdoor. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the petitioner along with others were disengaged from service as General Majdoor, they ﬁled W.P. No.24128 of 1996 wherein this Court directed the respondents to engage the petitioners therein as General Majdoor. In this regard, he submits that as the petitioner herein is one among the petitioners in the said writ petition, the relief granted by this Court is equally applicable to the petitioner along with others. Bringing the said fact, the petitioner made a representation dated 01.07.2011 and the respondents’ Company vide its letter dated 09.11.2011 informed that while implementing the order passed in W.P. No.24128 of 1996, the petitioner was out of service, hence the said order is not applicable to him, which is illegal. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioner made his representation on 01.07.2011 and while considering the said representation, the respondents have passed letter dated 09.11.2011, therefore, there is nothing for consideration of the case of the petitioner. He further submitted that the letter dated 09.11.2011 is not impugned in the instant writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. The fact that the petitioner worked as General Majdoor is not in dispute. The main grievance of the petitioner is only that though the Courts have directed the respondents to continue the petitioner as General Majdoor, they are not continuing him as General Majdoor but his services are taking as Badilifiller. It is evident on the face of the record that the petitioner, along with others, filed W.P. No.24128 of 1996 questioning their disengagement from the posts of General Majdoor and this Court, eventually, while disposing of the said writ petition, observed as under: “It appears, the petitioners are all working in the respondent company as CF and BDF on daily wage basis. In daily- rated jobs also, there are diﬀerent categories such as Category I, II. III, IV AND V etc. The post of General Majdoor, which is a daily-rated post, carries the pay of Category-I. Comparatively Category-I wges are less than the piece- rated wages such as BCF and CF. The petitioners have been engaged as General Majdoor in general shifts for the past many years. Therefore, they are entitled for absorption as General Majdoor. In the respondent-company, services of many General Majdoor were regularized. At the behest of some Trade Union, the respondents are trying to disengage the petitioners. The respondents cannot arbitrarily disengage the services of the petitioners. The petitioners are entitled for absorption as General Majdoor and their right cannot be taken away by anybody. Therefore, this writ petition is filed. While admitting the writ petition, an interim order was passed on 09.12.1996 directing the respondents to continue all the petitioners as General Majdoor in general shift, pending the writ petition. Further, the said order was made absolute on 17.07.2002. Therefore, the petitioners are continuing in their respective jobs as of now. In view of the above, the respondents re directed to consider regularization of the services of the petitioners (except the 4th petitioner against whom the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn on 09.01.2004) as per the scheme available and on part with similarly situated persons, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order if not already regularized. The petitioners shall be put on notice and they shall be heard in this regard and the decision taken by the respondents shall be communicated to them. Till such consideration, the services of the petitioners shall not be disturbed. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.” It is clear from the above that the petitioner worked earlier as General Majdoor. Thereafter, he was removed from service on the ground that he produced a fake medical certiﬁcate. Questioning which, he ﬁled I.D. No.38 of 2001 wherein directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with back wages. Challenging the said award, the respondents Company filed W.P. No.8504 of 2002, wherein this Court passed the following order: “Hence, the writ petition is dismissed upholding the award, dated 27.12.2001, passed in I.D. No.38 of 2001 in all respects except to the extent it awarded back wages. It is directed that the petitioner shall reinstate respondent No.2 into service within four weeks from today. The petitioner shall not be under obligation to pay diﬀerence of amount for the period during which the writ petition was pending. The pay of respondent No.2, however, shall be ﬁxed, by taking into account the length of service. There shall be no order as to costs.” Admittedly, the petitioner made a representation dated 01.07.2011 and in response to which, the respondents have also issued letter dated 09.11.2011, which reads as under: “Further reference to this oﬃce letter No.MMR/PER/L/ 066/11/3594, dated 07.07.2011, it is to inform that Sri J.Jagan Mohan Rao, Badiliﬃler, RK.1A Incline, was out of employment during the implementation of the order dated 12.12.2006 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., in WP No.24128 of 1996. Hence, the question of applicability of the order dated 12.12.2006 in WP No.24128 of 1996 to Sri J.Jagan Mohan Rao, does not arise.” It could be noticed from the above all that this Court had already referred the status of the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petitions and without reference of those orders, the respondents have passed the letter dated 09.11.2011. It is for the management to take the services of the employees as per the requirement in the Company but without reducing their status, pay and emoluments. This Court in its order dated 12.12.2006 passed in W.P. No.24128 of 1996 observed various categories of employees, who have been employed by the respondents Company on daily rated basis. Without reference of said order, the respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this writ petition can be disposed of with the following direction. Under those circumstances, the letter dated 09.11.2011 is set aside and the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for taking his services as General Majdoor instead of Badilifiller, taking into consideration the orders referred to hereinabove, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 05.12.2011 LSK