IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 1620 of 1999 Between: V. Balsham, S/o. V. Bhoomaiah Working as Contract Labour, A.P. State Electricity Board, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board rep. by its Member Secretary, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer (Thermal), Civil and Designs, A.P.S.E.Board, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 3 The Executive Engineer (Civil), Construction & Maintenance, APSEB., Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus (a) to declare that portion of B.P (P&G.Per.) MS.No. 271, dt.31-12-97, which deals with the contract labour, and also Circular Memo No. DP/DIR/OM (IR)/PO.II131/96, dt. 28/8/97 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, (b) consequently declare the rejection communicated to the petitioner herein through letter No.CE/C & SS/Estt./ PRS/171/123/98, dt.17-8-98 of the 2nd respondent also as illegal , unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, (c) direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner herein for being appointed on a regular basis in accordance with the scheme formulated by B.P.(P&G.Per.) Ms.No. 36 dt.18-5-97 and pass such other or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Counsel for the Respondents: MR. P.R.BALARAMI REDDY (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.1620 OF 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus to declare that portion of B.P. (P&G-Per.) Ms.No.271, dated 31.12.1997, which deals with the contract labour, and Circular Memo No.DP/DIR/OM (IR)/PO.II/131/96, dated 28.08.1997, and also the letter No.CE/C&SS/Esst./PRS/171/123/98, dated 17.08.1998, of the Chief Engineer (C&SS), A.P.S.E.B., Hyderabad, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for being appointed on regular basis in accordance with the scheme formulated under B.P.(P&G-Per.) Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. According to the petitioner, the erstwhile A.P. State Electricity Board (for short ‘the respondent Board’), when required personnel for discharging the duties like maintenance and upkeep of the computer section and maintenance of accounts registers, engaged persons through petty contractors called ‘Chit Agreements’. The persons engaged in such capacity are paid on a standard rate subject to revision from time to time. The Board entered into such agreement with petty contractors who supplied personnel for such works. In respect of works like maintenance and floor cleaning, they entered into an agreement based upon the carpet area and the rates are also fixed as per the standard scheduled rates of the Roads & Buildings Department. The petitioner was engaged as such by M/s WIPRO Infotech Limited, Secunderabad, for carrying maintenance works connected to Computer Centre-I of the Board at Somajiguda, from July 1994 onwards. Considering the fact that the persons employed as contract labour like petitioner have been constantly engaged for considerable time spanning over 5 to 10 years and to ensure a sense of security to those personnel, it was felt by the Board that some scheme has to be formulated for the purpose of regularization of their services. In that process, the respondent Board has issued B.P. (P&G.Per.) Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997. Preamble of the said Board Proceedings would indicate that it contemplated filling up of 50% of existing vacancies in the initial recruitment cadres by ex-casual labour. It also contemplated regularization of the contract labour and also village electricity workers. The stipulation given for this purpose would indicate that a selection committee would be constituted and persons fulfilling the qualifications as prescribed by the Board’s Service Regulations would be subjected to interview for the purpose of regularization of their services. The said proceedings also specified the basis on which seniority would be worked out and it dealt with the persons engaged in trades other than the 33 abolished categories in the Generating Stations. Further, though the said B.P.Ms.No.36 dealt with only those persons engaged in the trades other than the 33 categories specified in G.O.Ms.No.41 Labour Department, dated 23.09.1996, with a view to ensure that the persons excluded by the G.O.Ms.No.41 are also given benefit of a regular service; the Board has issued another B.P. (P&G.Per.) Ms.No.37, dated 18.05.1997. Thus, it was clear that the entire object of issuance of these two proceedings was to ensure a sense of security amongst the ex- casual labour, village electricity workers and contract labour, by trying to regularize their services to the extent of 50% of regular vacancies. While so, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent Board has issued a Circular Memo No. DP/DIR/OM(IR)/PO.II/131/96, dated 28.08.1997, clarifying that the persons engaged by way of Chit Agreements would not be entitled for being considered for appointment. The petitioner contends that this very clarification is against the principles basing on which the Board has issued B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997 with an object to provide regular appointment to the persons who were engaged as contract labour and, hence, the same is liable to be set aside. The respondent Board further issued B.P. (P&G.Per.) Ms.No.271, dated 31.12.1997, whereunder, while issuing certain working instructions in respect of filling up of all the existing vacancies by ex-casual labour/village electricity workers/contract labour, it was stated that contract labour engaged by a contractor having a valid license issued by a competent authority under the Contract Labour (Regulations & Abolition) Act, 1970 and Regulations made therein and working as on 18.05.1997 are only eligible for consideration. In a writ petition, being W.P.No.1549 of1998, filed by some employees seeking a declaration that the said B.P.Ms.No.271 is arbitrary and discriminatory, this Court held that the Board is liable to consider the cases of contract labour engaged by licensed or un-licensed contractor, according to the seniority. The petitioner contends that he is entitled to the benefit of regularization under B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997, either under the category of ex-casual labour/contract labour, but the respondent Board arbitrarily rejected his case stating that he has not fulfilled the conditions laid down in B.P.Ms.No.36 and 37 and was not covered under the categories mentioned therein. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is asserted that the petitioner was employed by WIPRO Infotech Limited, Secunderabad, on contract basis and was never employed by the Board directly or through contractor. Therefore, he does not come within the meaning of ex-casual Labour as mentioned in B.P.Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997. Even assuming that the petitioner comes within the meaning of ex- casual labour as provided in para 4 of B.P.Ms.No.36, he does not come within the purview of the posts mentioned in para 1 of the said B.P.Ms.No.36. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. The claim of the petitioner was rejected not because of the fact whether he was provided by a licensed contractor or unlicensed contractor, but it was rejected since he does not come within the meaning of ex-casual labour as mentioned in para 4 of B.P.Ms.No.36, as stated above, and is not qualified for any of the posts mentioned in para 1 of the said proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court through various documents filed as additional material papers to show that the petitioner can be treated as ex-casual labour/contract labour and strenuously contended that the petitioner is entitled to be considered as ex-casual labour/contract labour and is, therefore, entitled for the benefit under B.P.Ms.No.36 and 37. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and further submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as sought for and absolutely no interference is warranted by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the material made available on record. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as contract labour by WIPRO Infotech Limited to discharge the duties of cleaning and maintaining the Computer Centre at the respondent Board. Thus, the petitioner was employed by WIPRO Infotech Limited, but not by the respondent Board by any means. Further, the petitioner was not engaged by the respondent Board or any of the contractors engaged by it for the purpose of those works as enumerated in B.P.Ms.No.36 read with B.P.Ms.No.37. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner, since engaged by WIPRO Infotech Limited to work at the Computer Centre of the respondent Board, is automatically entitled to be absorbed into the service of the respondent Board as per the provisions of B.P.Ms.No.36. The petitioner has no right whatsoever for claiming benefit under B.P.Ms.No.36. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 27th February, 2008. IBL To 1. Two CCS to 2. Two CD copies