THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 7969 of 2010 O R D E R: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners have questioned proceedings dated 30.12.2009 issued in Letter No. SE/O/VSP/SAO/AO(R)/JAO/LT/U2/D Nos. 2006, 2007 and 2008 and consequential proceedings issued in letter No. HRD/IR/Legal/E- 24/10/D.No. 110, dated 03.02.2010. The Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited entrusted certain works, by entering into agreements with the private accounting agencies, Respondents 4, 5 and 6 herein, for the purpose of processing and generation of all outputs/reports as contemplated and several other allied activities, such as ledger processing, maintenance of service connection ledgers and other documents. Respondents 4, 5 and 6, in turn, have employed the petitioners for the purpose of performing the above mentioned works. While so, through proceedings, dated 30.12.2009, the agreements entered into by Respondents 1 to 3 in favour of Respondents 4, 5 and 6 were terminated, as per Clause 11 thereof, on the ground that the staff engaged by the respondent company themselves have gained experience in the works stated above and that they want to get the works done through their staff. The petitioners are not engaged directly by Respondents 1 to 3. They claim that they worked under Respondents 4, 5 and 6. They have also made a representation for absorption of their services into the respondent company. By further proceedings, dated 03.02.2010, the claim of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that there is no privity of contract between them and the management of A.P.E.P.D.C.L.. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the termination of the contract, the petitioners were deprived of their employment. He further submits that as the petitioners are working under Respondents 1 to 3, they are entitled to be regularized in the service of the respondent Corporation. Insofar as the proceedings, dated 30.12.2009 is concerned, it is a termination of contract entered into in favour of Respondents 4, 5 and 6 by Respondents 1 to 3. When the contract entered into by the respondent company in favour of Respondents 4, 5 and 6 was terminated as per the terms thereof, it is un-understandable how the individual persons, who are claiming to be working under Respondents 4, 5 and 6, question such termination proceedings. If at all aggrieved, it is for Respondents 4, 5 and 6, to agitate their rights but not the petitioners. Insofar as the proceedings, dated 03.02.2010 is concerned, the petitioners are stated to be working under some agency and that there was no direct contract between them and the respondent company. Therefore, they cannot seek regularization of their services in the respondent company. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------- (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J) 09th April 2010 ksld