THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2179 OF 2006 DATED 19th NOVEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN: Y.Surya Bhagavan and others … Petitioners A n d The APGENCO rep. by its Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2179 OF 2006 O R D E R The petitioners assail the action of the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation Limited (APGENCO) in denying them service benefits with effect from 06.12.1996 as contemplated in B.P.Ms.No.326 dated 14.03.1998 and computing their service only from 15.04.2002, being the date of their absorption in the APGENCO as Junior Plant Attendants. They also allege discrimination as other similarly absorbed persons were given service benefits with effect from 06.12.1996. The petitioners worked as Contract Labour (Electricians) in the erstwhile APSEB since the year 1995. Pursuant to the Notification issued under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 vide G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 23.09.1996, the erstwhile Board undertook absorption of the Contract Labour engaged in the prohibited categories. As per the guidelines evolved in this regard, an employee who was engaged in the prohibited category and who was on the rolls as on the date of the notification was entitled to be considered for absorption. Thereafter B.P.Ms.No.326 dated 14.03.1998 came to be issued whereby the Contract Labour engaged in the abolished categories were absorbed in service with effect from 06.12.1996 and pecuniary benefits were to be given to them with effect from 09.12.1997. The petitioners’ claim for absorption was however rejected by the erstwhile Board. Aggrieved thereby, they filed W.P.No.6118 of 1998 before this Court which was disposed of on 11.11.1998 directing the Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad, to conduct an enquiry as to the eligibility of the petitioners to claim absorption and directing the Board to grant them the said relief in the event they were found eligible. After a protracted delay, pursuant to the subsequent order dated 24.03.2000 passed by this Court in W.P.No.15507 of 1999 directing the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, to conduct the enquiry, the same was concluded and culminated in report dated 19.09.2001. The finding of the said enquiry was in favour of the petitioners as the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Eluru, found that the petitioners had worked in the abolished categories in the erstwhile Board. By then, the APGENCO had come into existence as the successor-in-interest of the Board and being aggrieved by the said report, it filed W.P.No.25086 of 2001. In the meanwhile, as the APGENCO had not implemented the directions of this Court in the earlier writ petitions to the effect it should absorb the petitioners in service if the report was in their favour, Contempt Case No.1436 of 2001 was filed by the petitioners. The said case was closed directing the APGENCO to implement the report subject to the result of the writ petition filed by it questioning the same. It is in pursuance of this order that the petitioners came to be absorbed under Memo dated 15.04.2002. Thereafter, by order dated 09.07.2004 this Court dismissed W.P.No.25086 of 2001. Hence, the report dated 19.09.2001 attained finality. The grievance of the petitioners presently is with regard to the denial of service benefits to them from 06.12.1996 as contemplated under B.P.Ms.No.326 dated 14.03.1998, which benefit was extended to their contemporaries who were similarly situated but were absorbed in service without objection in the first instance. The facts aforestated demonstrate that there was no delay on the part of the petitioners in laying a claim for absorption in service. It was only because of the recalcitrant attitude adopted by the erstwhile Board, the predecessor of the APGENCO, that they had to run from pillar to post for justice. In spite of the favourable report by the Labour Authorities upon due enquiry pursuant to the order of this Court, the APGENCO questioned the same and did not choose to implement it forthwith. It was only after the passing of the order in the Contempt Case that the APGENCO finally absorbed the petitioners in service. That being so, the action of the APGENCO in denying the petitioners the benefit of service due to them under B.P.Ms.No.326 dated 14.03.1998 cannot be countenanced. Sri G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that because of the denial of the service benefits in accordance with the said B.P.Ms., the petitioners had to forego their seniority and were shown to be far junior to their contemporaries who were absorbed initially. The prejudice caused to the petitioners by the illegal action of the erstwhile Board and thereafter, the APGENCO, is therefore manifest. In any event, once B.P.Ms.No.326 dated 14.03.1998 was put in place by the erstwhile Board stipulating that service benefits would be available to those absorbed in service from 06.12.1996 and pecuniary benefits from 09.12.1997, the petitioners who were entitled to the benefit of the said B.P.Ms. cannot be denied the same at this stage because of the inaction and lapses on the part of the Board and thereafter, the APGENCO. Permitting the same would amount to allowing these authorities to take advantage of their own lapses. The writ petition is accordingly allowed directing the respondents to extend the benefits of B.P.Ms.No.326 dated 14.03.1998 to the petitioners notwithstanding their absorption in service under the subsequent Memo dated 15.04.2002. No order as to costs. -------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR,J 19th NOVEMBER, 2010 Note: Issue C.C. in two days. (B/O)PGS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.2179 OF 2006 19th NOVEMBER, 2010