HON’BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE WRIT PETITION No.24724 OF 2002 Between: P. Gopi Krishna … Petitioner AND The Chairman and Managing Director, A.P. Transco, Vidyuth Soudha, Khairatabad at Hyd., and two others … Respondents :: O R D E R :: Counsel for the petitioner : Shri S. Chandra Sekhar Counsel for the respondents : Shri Samineni Kishore March 21, 2007 In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to appoint him as Lower Division Clerk in terms of Memo No.Addl.Secy/DGM (I.R.)P.O.2/A1/683/ 99-1, dated 21-6-1999 read with the policy contained in B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18-5-1997. The petitioner was engaged as Watchman/Security Guard (contract labour) in the office of the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short, ‘the Board’) with effect from 1-1-1989. In 1998, the petitioner and seven others filed Writ Petition No.29592 of 1998 for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to consider their cases for regular appointment in accordance with the policy contained in B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18-5-1997. By an order dated 2-7-1999, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition qua petitioner Nos.2 to 8 including the present petitioner. Writ Appeal No.1478 of 1999 preferred by the petitioner and others was allowed by the Division Bench vide judgment dated 15-10-1999 and the respondents were directed to consider their cases for absorption and regularisation as watch and ward/security guards. The operative part of the judgment of the Division Bench reads as under: “In view of the observations made above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The respondent- authorities are directed to consider the cases of the appellants for absorption and regularisation as Watch and Ward/Security Guards within a period of three months from today especially in view of the fact that the appellants have become overage after serving the respondent for about 11 long years. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.” The respondents challenged the aforementioned judgment in S.L.P. (C) C.C.No.2392 of 2000. At one stage, the Supreme Court stayed the judgment of the Division Bench, but after hearing the parties, the special leave petition was dismissed. The petitioner claims that he possesses the qualification prescribed for the post of Lower Division Clerk and as such he is entitled to be absorbed on that post. In support of his claim, the petitioner has relied on the clarification given by Additional Secretary, A.P. Transco vide Memo No.Addl.Secy/DGM (I.R.)P.O.2/A1/683/ 99-1, dated 21-6-1999. He has pleaded that even though similarly situated persons have been appointed on regular basis, his case has not been considered and, in this manner, he has been discriminated. In the counter affidavit filed by Sri Tarimeni Rangaiah Naidu, Superintending Engineer, Operation/CPDC. of A.P. Ltd., Anantapur, it has been averred that the petitioner did not work for the period from 12- 11-1994 to 24-12-1994 and that he is not entitled to the benefit of the policy contained in B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18-5-1997. The deponent has further averred that during the pendency of the special leave petition, the petitioner cannot seek enforcement of the direction given by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1478 of 1999. On 21-2-2007, the Court had, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, passed the following order: “In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issue of a mandamus to the respondents to appoint as Lower Division Clerk by treating him eligible in terms of memo dated 21.06.1999. During the course of hearing, Shri S. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the Court’s notice that by an order dated 19.12.2003, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.7219 of 2000 filed by Member Secretary, A.P. Transco and others against judgment dated 15.10.1999 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1478 of 1999. Xerox copy of Supreme Court’s order was shown to Shri Samineni Kishore, learned counsel for the respondents who made a request for adjournment to enable him to seek instructions in the matter of implementation of judgment of the Division Bench. As requested by Shri Samineni Kishore, the case is adjourned to 07.03.2007”. Today, Shri Samineni Kishore candidly stated that the special leave petition filed by the respondents against the judgment of the Division Bench has been dismissed and submitted that in that view of the matter, the respondents do not have any option but to implement the judgment of the Division Bench. He gave out that the needful will be done within a period of one month from today. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous with liberty to the petitioner to file miscellaneous petition for its revival and for issue of further directions if the respondents fail to implement the judgment of the Division Bench. G.S.SINGHVI, CJ March 21, 2007 ks