IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12005 of 2002 Between: 1 G. Sreenivasa Rao, S/o. G. Krishna murthy, C/o. P. Sudhakar, D.No. 38-20-35/1, Kandakam, Western Street, Eluru, W.G. Dist. 2 Sunkara Suryanarayana, S/o. Late Venkata Ramna Rao, C/o.R. Krishna Rao, J.A.O., O/o.Asst. Accounts Officer, E.R.O.(R), A.P.E.P.D.C. Ltd., Canal Road, Eluru, W.G. District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Managing Director and Chairman, A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Sarswathi Park,' Visakhpatnam. 2 The Superintending Engineer, (Operation Circle), A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Eastern Street, Gajjalavari Tank, Eluru, W.G.District. 3 The Divisional Engineer, (Electrical), Operation, A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Eluru, W.G.District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR. V.R.PADALA FOR MR.B.P.RAJU Counsel for the Respondents:MR.P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioners’ cases for regularization in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they worked as contract labourers under respondent No.2, they were not called for interview for regularization in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. Sri V.R.Padala, learned counsel representing Sri B.P.Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on 04.10.2002, this Court granted interim direction to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners in terms of the above-mentioned B.P.Ms. No counter-affidavit is filed. Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that since the experience certificates produced by the petitioners were found to be bogus, they were not called for interview. The fact, however, remains that neither a counter-affidavit is filed nor any order has been passed giving reasons for not considering the cases of the petitioners at least after this Court granted the interim direction on 04.10.2002. In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to pass an appropriate order on the claims of the petitioners for regularization in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioners. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by the order to be passed by respondent No.2, they shall be free to avail their remedy. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th JANUARY, 2009. kvni