IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE EIGTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.20805 of 2002 Between: Rayapati Janaiah … Petitioner And The Transimission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.20805 of 2002 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring inaction on the part of the respondents in paying salary since August, 1987 onwards following BPMS.No.938, dated 20.12.1982 and BPMS No.113, dated 03.06.1993 and latest P.O.O. 9GM (IR)-per) MS. No.95, dated 06.08.2001, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to pay arrears of salary and future salary regularly. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he, along with others, was appointed as Village Electricity Worker vide letter dated 18.06.1987. Since then the petitioner is working as Village Electricity Worker of Gangireddypalem Village, Nagireddypalem Post under the jurisdiction of the respondent authorities without any break in service. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent, Divisional Electrical Engineer, vide his letter dated 18.06.1987 informed the President of Gangireddypalem Grampanchayt that through special employment scheme, A.P.S.E.B., the petitioner was selected and completed three months training at T.T.C. and he was appointed by the 3rd respondent, Executive Officer-cum-Village Development Officer, as Village Electricity Worker as per BPMS. No.938, dated 20.12.1982 and Board Memo No.MPS/DM/IR/P.O./2/217/84, dated 16.03.1984. Since then he is working as such continuously without any break in service and from time to time, bill vouchers are being prepared. In spite of it, the respondents have not taken any steps to reimburse the Gratn-in-Aid to the Grampanchayat. Therefore, the petitioner and the Executive Officer have given number of representations to reimburse Grant-in-Aid but the respondent authorities have not taken any steps to follow P.O.O. (GM(IR)per) M.S. No.95, dated 06.08.2001 according to which, the earlier Grant-in-Aid was being paid Rs.600/- per month in pursuance of the BPMS. No.938, dated 28.12.1982 and BPMS. No.113, dated 03.06.1993 and the same was enhanced to Rs.1,200/- per month to each worker. Thus, the respondents are not paying salary after sanctioning of reimbursement of Grant-in-Aid per month at the rate of Rs.1,200/-. Hence, the present writ petition. It is also submitted that earlier the petitioner filed W.P. No.13034 of 2000 wherein the 3rd respondent was directed to pay the salary to the petitioner, if he has been discharging the duties of Village Electricity Worker as per the terms and conditions of his engagement. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, denying the averments of the petitioner, filed in support of the petition, counter affidavit has been filed, inter alia, submitted that as per the Village Electricity Worker Scheme, the Board was reimbursing salary paid to the Village Electricity Worker by the Gram Panchayat, subject to certification of the Gram Panchayat and processing of hand receipts. It is further submitted that the 3rd respondent was communicated a letter dated 28.08.1995 not to engage the services of the petitioner. Thereafter, no hand receipts were sent by the 3rd respondent as a token of work done by the petitioner. It is also submitted that earlier the petitioner filed a writ petition and wherein this Court directed the 3rd respondent to pay the salary if the petitioner is discharging the duties of Village Electricity Worker as per the terms and conditions of his engagement. According to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has not been discharging duties from 28.08.1995, therefore, the question of reimbursement of salary to the Grampanchayat, if at all the Grampanchayat had paid to him does not fall for consideration. No specific counter has been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent. Heard and perused the material on record. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though he is working as Village Electricity Worker, the respondent authorities are not paying salary to him. From a perusal of the record it is evident that earlier the petitioner filed W.P. No.13034 of 2000 questioning letter dated 28.08.1995, informing the 3rd respondent that during the inspection of premises of the petitioner he accepted that he has resorted to direct tapping of supply and his statement was recorded. Therefore, he would not continue as Village Electricity Worker and his services may be dispensed with. This Court by order dated 17.04.2002 directed the 3rd respondent to pay the salary to the petitioner, if he has been discharging the duties of Village electricity Worker, as per the terms and conditions of his engagement. It is evident from order No.P.O.O.9GM(IR)-Per) Ms. No.95, dated 06.08.2001 that the Grant-in-Aid is enhanced from Rs.600/- to Rs.1,200/- per month (i.e. 100% hike) to the Grampanchayat/ Group of Gram Panchayats for each part time Village Electricity Worker who is engaged on part-time basis only, without any liability on the part of A.P.TRANSCO of their absorption. Though it is the case for the year 2002, the 3rd respondent did not file any counter. In the absence of any specific counter from the 3rd respondent stating that the petitioner is discharging his duties as Village Electricity Worker no positive direction can be given to the respondent authorities, as sought for by the petitioner. It is also not known whether the 3rd respondent, pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.13034 of 2000, paying the salary to the petitioner. It is also noticed that this Court on 09.12.2003 in WPMP. No.26042 of 2002, this Court specifically pointed out that the claim of the petitioner is that he is not being paid salary in accordance with the enhanced rates consequent on the proceedings bearing reference No.POO (GM(IR)-Per)Ms.No.95, dated 06.08.2001 issued by the 1st respondent. Taking into consideration the assertion of the petitioner that he has been working as Village Electricity Worker of the village from 18.06.1987 till date without any break in service, directed to arrange and pay the salary to the petitioner in terms of the 1st respondents proceedings dated 06.08.2001 expeditiously and in any case within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Under those circumstances, it is also not known whether the interim direction of this Court has been complied with. In view of the above, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner, if he is discharging his duties as Village Electricity Worker, for payment of wages and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 08.02.2011 LSK