IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 27298 of 2003 Between: K. Srinivas, S/o. Rangaiah R/o. Govinda Rajulu Nagar, Domalapenta, Srisailam Dam West, Mahaboobnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APGENCO rep by its Chairman and Managing Director Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 The General Manager (Adm) APGENCO, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 3 The Chief Engineer/Electrical O & M Srisailam East, Sundipenta, Kurnool District. 4 The Superintending Engineer, Civil Circle-I, Hydel Projects, Srisailam Dam West, Mahaboobnagar District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents in absorbing the contract labour worked in Srisailam Left Bank Hydro Electric Scheme vide Proceedings Rc.No. SC/CCII/HP/SLMW/AAO/Adm/1013/2000, dated 31-10-2000 by not considering the petitioner and without following any procedure as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for absorption in the existing vacancies of JPA/Mazdoor reported vide Proceedings G.O.O.No. 180/GM(Adm)/2003, dated 11-6-2003 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.EATHAKOTA VENKATA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: The case of the petitioner is that he was a contract labour from 1991 to 1999 under the fourth respondent as a driver of car bearing No.AD 8401 engaged in the area of operation and maintenance work in APGENCO by the fourth respondent. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 23- 09-1996 abolishing the contract labour system in the respondent board in respect of 33 categories of employment. Pursuant to the same, the respondent- corporation issued B.P.Ms.No.37, dated 18-05-1997 and 36 dated 18-05-1997 contemplating certain guidelines for absorption of the contract workers working in 33 categories of employment. The same was reiterated in B.P.Ms.No.260 dated 19-12-1997 and B.P.Ms.No.272 dated 31-12-1997. For the purpose of absorption of the contract workers one must be on the muster rolls as on 23-09-1996. It is his case that since the case of the petitioner for absorption was not considered, he ﬁled W.P.No.7263 of 1998 along with others seeking direction to the respondents for absorption and this Court by order dated 19-03-1998 disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services and further directed not to disqualify the petitioners only on the ground that the petitioners are over aged at the time of their initial engagement. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner was called for the interview through Memo No.SE/CC.I/HP/SLMW/Adm/C1/46/99, dated 22-01-1999 by the fourth respondent and he was interviewed. On 18-02-1999, the fourth respondent issued speaking orders rejecting his case on the ground that the contract labour or oﬃce staﬀ engaged for construction works or in construction projects are not eligible. It is the speciﬁc case that out of 13 persons who ﬁled W.P.No.7263 of 1998 along with the petitioner and who were working along with the petitioner, 7 of them were absorbed viz., 1) G.Vijaya Kumar 2) S.Kalpana 3) P.Jangaiah 4) B.Sarojanamma 5) D.Raja Rao 6) A.Siva Satyanarayana 7) Ch.Rama Rao The petitioner also worked under the same contractor for a period of nine years without any break in his service, but was not absorbed. It is also his speciﬁc case that by proceedings in Rc.No.SE/CCII/HP/SLMW/AAO/Adm/1013/2000, dated 31-10-2000 the respondents have appointed the persons who worked in the construction of the projects, but the same beneﬁt has not given to the petitioner. It appears that by letter No.SE/CC.I/HP/SLMW/Adm/C1/186/99, dated 18- 02-1999 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Civil Circle.I, Hydel Projects, Srisailam Dam West, the case of the petitioner was rejecting on the ground that the contract labour or oﬃce staﬀ engaged for the construction works in construction projects are not eligible for absorption. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner, along with others who are parties in W.P.No.7263 of 1998 has worked as contract labour for the construction work in the construction projects and out of 13 petitioners, 7 were absorbed leaving the petitioner and others. It is also speciﬁcally contended that by proceedings in Rc.No.SE/CCII/HP/SLMW/AAO/Adm/1013/2000, dated 31-10- 2000, the candidate who worked along with the petitioner in the construction project was also appointed. But the case of the petitioner was considered and rejected on the sole ground that the contract labour or the oﬃce staﬀ engaged for construction works in the construction projects are not eligible for absorption and that reasoning is unsustainable and the proceedings is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-corporation submitted that though initially the contract workers engaged in the projects were not engaged but subsequently the board has issued proceedings extending the beneﬁt of absorption to the contract workers engaged in the construction projects. But as per the counter ﬁled by the respondents the petitioner’s name was not found on the rolls of contract labour at the relevant point of time, therefore, his case was not considered. It is stated that to resolve the dispute in the writ petition, directing the petitioner, to approach the appropriate labour authority and get records, to know whether he is engaged as a contract labour at the relevant point of time so as to get the benefit of absorption under the scheme of absorption of the contract labours, would be proper. The above statement is unsustainable for the reason that, that is not the ground on which the case of the petitioner has been rejected. As per the letter No.SE/CC.I/HP/SLMW/Adm/C1/186/99, dated 18-02-1999, the case of the petitioner appears to be rejected only on the ground that the contract labour or oﬃce staﬀ engaged for the construction works in construction projects are not eligible for absorption. It is the speciﬁc case of the petitioner that the petitioner is one among the 13 petitioners who are the parties in W.P.No.7263 of 1998. Out of them, 7 contract labours were absorbed in addition to a contract labour who were also absorbed by proceedings in Rc.No.SE/CC.II/HP/SLMW/AAO/Adm/1013/2000, dated 31-10- 2000, who also worked along with the petitioner. That being the position, the stand taken by the corporation in the counter, that the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that his name was not found on the rolls of contract labour at the relevant point of time, is unsustainable. Therefore, in view of the speciﬁc contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-corporation that the contract labour engaged for the construction works in construction projects were also being considered of found eligible as per the guidelines, the rejection of the case of the petitioner on the ground that he was engaged as a contract worker in the construction project is unsustainable. Therefore, letter No.SE/CC.I/HP/SLMW/Adm/C1/186/99, dated 18-02-1999 issued by the fourth respondent/Superintending Engineer is set aside and the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for absorption as per the rules, provided the petitioner fulﬁlls the conditions of absorption of the contract labours, by applying which conditions the case of the petitioners in W.P.No.6372 of 1998 have been considered, and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No order as to costs. __________________ 29th September, 2008 SKM