IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION NO :8466 of 2004 Between: G.Yadaiah & Others. ..... PETITIONERS AND The Principal, Regional Telecom Training Centre, Gachibowli, Hyderabad & Others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No. 8466 OF 2004 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) Petitioners, six in number, moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench seeking direction to the respondents to grant temporary status to them retrospectively with effect from their dates of joining and all other benefits for which temporary employees are entitled to including the regularization of their services according to their turn in the seniority list of casual mazdoors of appropriate unit. On dismissal of O.A.No.1233 of 2001 by the Tribunal on 29.4.2002, this writ petition is filed for a direction to the respondents to confer temporary status and regularization as per the petitioners turn in accordance with the scheme contained in D.O.T.ND Lr.No.269-1/89-STN, dated 7.11.1989. It is the contention of the petitioners that they were recruited in the canteen of the respondents from 1.7.1988 onwards on different status (as detailed in para 3 of the judgment of the Tribunal) as casual workers to attend hostel at Gachibowli to perform the duties as Server, cleaners, head cook and assistant cook. As per DOT’s order No.269-10/89-STN, dated 7.11.1989, to confer temporary status on casual mazdoors, one has to render one year continuous service (with not less than 240 days service in any year or 206 days in respect of office observing 5 days week like the first respondent). Since they have fulfilled the conditions stipulated in the said letter, dated 7.11.1989, they made a representation to the respondents, but as the same has not evoked any response, the above O.A. came to be filed. Contesting the O.A., the respondents contended that the petitioners were not engaged by the department or the authorities of Regional Telecom Training Centre, Hyderabad. The mess in the Regional Telecom Training Centre in which the petitioners were working is being maintained by the Trainees on cooperative basis, and that the wages to the persons engaged by them for running the mess is paid out of their contributions to the society so formed and therefore, the Department has no role either in the engagement of their services or in the payment of wages or even in controlling the service conditions of the petitioners. While the O.A. was pending consideration, the mess in which the petitioners were working, was given to a contractor and the petitioners who were working under the contractor also filed a reply admitting that they were working under a contractor to whom the mess was handed over on contract basis by the trainee cooperative society. Taking into consideration of the said aspect, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. as not maintainable holding that the petitioners cannot be declared as casual labourers. Later, the petitioners filed a review petition in R.A.SR.No.390 of 2003 along with M.A.No.90 of 2003 to condone the delay of 252 days in filing the review application. M.A.No.90 of 2003 was dismissed on 5.5.2003 consequent to which, the review application was also dismissed. Hence, the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners by placing reliance upon a decision of this Court in Senior Deputy Director General (Electrical), Corporate Office, BSNL, New Delhi and Others v. M.Subbarao and Others (2005 (3) ALT 340 (D.B.), contends that since the petitioners have continuously worked for more than 240 days, they are entitled to be included in the scheme formulated for grant of temporary status. But, the learned counsel fairly admitted that on inviting the tenders by the respondents, the contractor terminated the services of the petitioners and now they are not working. The judgment on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand for the reason that the petitioners therein were engaged as part-time casual labourers, who worked as such for more than 240 days and in that view of the matter, they were held to be entitled for inclusion in the scheme for grant of temporary status, but such is not the situation in the case on hand, since, all the petitioners were not appointed as part-time casual labourers by the respondents- Department and on the other hand, they were engaged by the Trainee Officers who formed a cooperative society to run the mess by themselves. Furthermore after the mess was given on contract basis, the petitioners worked under the contractor on contract basis. In that view of the matter, the petitioners cannot claim temporary status as they were neither engaged nor paid by the department. No infirmity is discernable with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) _________________ (NOUSHAD ALI, J.) FEBRUARY 08, 2010 TSR