IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.17848 of 1999 & 3965 of 2000 W.P.No.17848 of 1999 Between: 1 Mandakurthi Satti Babu S/o.Seshagiri Rao, R/o.Anakapalle Visakhapatnam District. 2 Battula Aruna D/o. B.V.Satyanarayana R/o. Anakapalle Vishakapatnam 3 Karnatakapu Venkata Ratna Mala W/o. Adinarayana R/o. Anakapalle Vishakapatnam District 4 Kada Sudha Rani D/o. Sambamurthy R/o. Anakapalle Vishakapatnam District 5 Vadiboyena Balaramakrishna S/o. Late Pothuraju Mungapaka Mandal Vishakapatnam District 6 Mandakurthi Sunitha Devi D/o. Seshagiri Rao R/o. Anakapalle Vishakapatnam District 7 Pamula Eswara Rao S/o. Late Appala Naidu, R/o.Mulapeta Village, Tummapala Post, Anakapalle Vishakapatnam District 8 V.Venkateswara Rao S/o. Prabhakara Rao R/o. Anakapalle Vishakapatnam District 9 Pudi Ganesh S/o. Pudi Rama Rao,R/o. Narsipatnam, Vishakapatnam District 10 Chavitini Maheshwara Rao, Aleas; Mahesh S/o. Late Suri Babu R/o. Anakapalle Vishakapatnam District 11 T. Appalanarasimham, S/o.T.Ch.V.Ramana Rao, R/o. Naidutota Vishakapatnam District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd Rep by its Chairman and Managing Director, Vidyuth Soudha Khairatabad, Hyderabad 2 Zonal Engineer, Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam. 3 Superintending Engineer Operation Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Ltd, Vishakapatnam Circle, Vishakapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioners for absorption into the services of the TRANSCO as illegal, arbitrary etc., and grant such other or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court nay deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners : MR.V.V.L.N.SARMA Counsel for the Respondents : MR.S.RAVINDRANATH W.P.No.3965 of 2000 Between: I.Venu, S/o. Tirumalacharyulu, R/o. Visakhapatnam District, Anakapally. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Rep. by its and Managing Director, Vidyuth Soudha, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. 2 Zoal Engineer, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh, Zonal Office Visakhapatnam. 3 Superintending Engineer, Operation, Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Visakhapatnam Circle, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENTS 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for absorption into the services of the TRANSCO as illegal, arbitrary etc., and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.V.V.L.N.SARMA Counsel for the Respondents : MR.S.RAVINDRANATH The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER : As identical questions arise for consideration in these two writ petitions, they are being disposed of together by this common order. 2. Initially, the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board was looking after the electricity power generation, transmission and distribution in the state of Andhra Pradesh. In view of the electricity reforms, the said activities were being separately dealt by several Companies formed for the purpose of generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. The erstwhile Electricity Board, when it was looking after the collection of electricity consumption charges, has entrusted the said work to private accounting agencies on commission basis. These petitioners claim to have been appointed on a consolidated salary by such agencies, which were appointed by the Electricity Board for the purpose of collection of electricity consumption charges. In these writ petitions, the petitioners seek directions by way of Mandamus to direct the respondents to absorb them into the service of the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh. For attending various works, there was a practice of engaging casual labour, contract labour and also by appointing the Village Electricity Workers. Earlier, when there was a demand from the Registered Trade Unions for absorption of such workers while filling up the vacant posts on regular basis, conceding to the said demand, the erstwhile Electricity Board has entered into an agreement with the Trade Unions, and consequently issued B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997, notifying a scheme providing for filling up of 50% of the existing vacancies in the regular service of the Electricity Board by considering the claims of ex-casual labour, contract labour and also of those working as Village Electricity Workers. 3. In these writ petitions, the petitioners also claim that they be treated as eligible persons within the framework of the scheme notified in B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. On the said plea, they seek directions for their absorption into regular service. 4. The agencies with which the contracts were entered into by the Electricity Board for collecting the bill amounts of the electricity consumption charges, are not even impleaded as party-respondents to these writ petitions. The copy of the contract is also not placed before this Court so as to know the terms and conditions of the contract entered into between the erstwhile Electricity Board and the agencies. Even according to the petitioners, they were engaged by the agencies to which the contract works were entrusted by the Electricity Board. In such an event, by no stretch of imagination, they can be treated as working directly in the Board. There was no direct contract between the Board and the petitioners and merely because their services were utilised by the agencies to which bill- collection works were entrusted by the Board on contract basis, the petitioners cannot seek any directions for regularization of their services. There is also no material placed before this Court to show that any wages were paid directly by the Electricity Companies to the petitioners so as to claim any relationship of employer and employee by the petitioners with that of the Transmission Corporation, which is a successor Company of the erstwhile Electricity Board. A perusal of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 also makes it clear that benefit of consideration for filling up of 50% of the vacant posts is confined only to casual workers, contract workers and Village Electricity workers working directly under the Board. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that there is no basis for the claim of the petitioners to seek directions for their absorption. The judgment of this Court rendered in writ petition No.13501 of 1997, dated 4th August 1998 clearly covers the issue against the petitioners. 5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, and in view of the judgment of this Court in writ petition No.13501 of 1997, dated 4th August 1998, I do not find any ground for grant of relief as prayed for by the petitioners. Both the writ petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 27th January 2009. Nsr/ajr