THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.23085 OF 2005 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent – Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation in considering the case of the petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased contract labour, for compassionate appointment, in spite of representations made by her, the writ petition is filed. 3. The case of the petitioner, as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, is that the husband of the petitioner worked as contract labour i.e. as Junior Electrician in the respondent – corporation engaged through the contractor. The Government of A.P. abolished the contract labour system in thirty three categories by issuing G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 23.9.1996 and pursuant to the same, the APSEB issued guidelines in B.P.Ms.No.37 dated 18.5.1997 and B.P.Ms.No.272 dated 31.12.1997 for absorption in the said abolished categories. Therefore, the contract labour became entitled for absorption in the service of the respondent – Corporation. The further case of the petitioner is that Electrician is one of the prohibited categories as per G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 23.9.1996 and hence he is eligible for absorption. As the case of the husband was not considered for absorption, he filed W.P.No.21683/2000 before this court and by order dated 21.3.2001 this court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and while so, on 27.9.2001 the husband of the petitioner died due to current shock on 27.9.2001 while on duty. Therefore, the petitioner filed her representations on 9.10.2001, 22.9.2002 and 31.3.2003 for consideration of her case for providing suitable employment on compassionate grounds, but the same were not considered. Her further case is that similarly situated persons approached this court and in the writ appeal in W.A.No.657/1999 dated 1.12.1999 this court held that the wife or the dependants of the deceased contract labour are entitled for regular appointment on compassionate grounds, if the deceased employees are found to be eligible for absorption as per the guidelines. It is also stated that the matter was carried to the Apex Court and the order in the Writ Appeal was confirmed. As the case of the petitioner is not being considered, she filed the present writ petition. 4. The respondents filed counter affidavit and while denying the averments made in the writ affidavit, stated inter alia that the case of the petitioner was already considered and the same was rejected. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that a learned single Judge of this court in W.P.No.19231/2005 by order dated 7.12.2007, following the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.657/1999 dated 01.12.1999 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner therein who was the wife of a deceased contract labour, who is working under prohibited category. 6. From the averments made in the writ affidavit, it could be seen that the facts of the present case and that of the writ appeal in W.A.No.657/1999 are similar and moreover the Division Bench of this court in the said appeal by order dated 1.12.1999 prescribed certain procedure for considering the case of the petitioner therein. The relevant portion in the judgment of the Division Bench, is extracted as under: “Respondents or other competent authority shall interview the petitioner, collect the necessary documents available with her and examine the question of entitlement of the petitioner’s husband for regular absorption in the then APSEB in the light of the relevant criteria and the material available. If there is any doubt, necessary further verification should be made to cross check the information with the records available in the concerned unit and/or with the contractors, we make it clear that while causing verification in the instant case, no different standards of than those applied to workmen absorbed shall be applied. On the other hand, it is a case where more liberal approach is called for while scrutinizing her case. If the husband of the petitioner was working with the contractor on 23.9.1996 in one of the prohibited categories of employment, compassionate appointment shall be offered to the petitioner. This court records the statement of the learned sanding counsel that if the contract labour was working almost continuously during the month of September, 1996, his mere absence on 23.9.1996 is not being taken seriously by respondents for the purpose of considering his case for regularization. The petitioner’s counsel shall furnish the full and latest address of the petitioner to the Standing Counsel for APGENCO within three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 7. Though in the counter filed by the respondents, it is stated that the case of the petitioner was considered and rejected, there is no material to show that the case of the petitioner was considered as per the procedure prescribed by the Division Bench in the writ appeal and moreover the contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that no such order rejecting the case of the petitioner was communicated to the petitioner till date. Hence, in these circumstances, the present writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the above judgment of the Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.657/1999 dated 1.12.1999. No costs. AVS ------------------------------------ 02—07—2008