IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. ASHOK KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 4180 of 2008 Between: 1 The Engineer in Chief, Irrigation Wing, Errum Manzil Hyderabad 2 The Superintending Engineer, I&CAD Irrigation circle Nakkalagutta, Post , Hanmakonda, Warangal District 3 The Chief engineer, Irrigation Wing, Errum Manzil Hyderabad 4 The Exe.Engineer, I&CAD Medium Project Division No.1 Satyanarayanapuram, Cherla Mandal, Khammam District 5 The Dy.Exe.Engineer, Sub Division No.I Satyanarayanapuram Cherla Mandal, Khammam District 6 The Asst.Exe.Engineer, Taliperu Dam Works, Peddamedesileru Cherla Mandal, Khammam District 7 The Govt of AP., Rep. by its Secretary I&CAd Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONERS AND R.Rama Rao, Man Mazdoor on daily wage basis office of Executive Engineer, I&CAD Medium projects Divison No.I Satyanarayanapuram, Cherla Mandal Khammam District .....RESPONDENT 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon`ble AP Admn.Tribunal, Hyderabad passed in OA.No.2267/1996 dated 6.8.2007 as being erroneous illegal, and unreasonable and quash the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order, dated 06.08.2007 passed in O.A. No. 2267 of 1996 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and quash the same as erroneous, illegal and unreasonable the respondents in the above O.A. filed this writ petition. The respondent herein filed the above OA seeking a direction to the petitioners herein to regularise his services in the office of the 4th petitioner and to set aside the order passed by the first petitioner in Memo No.W2/EE.II/R&M/64666/94-2, dated 6.10.1995 whereby the proposal submitted by the Superintending Engineer, I & CADD, Irrigation Circle, Warangal for regularisation of services, was rejected. The respondent herein was working as Man Mazdoor since 1.5.1982 on daily wages under the control of 4th petitioner herein and subsequently, though he became eligible for regularisation of his services in terms of GO Ms. 212 dated 22.4.1994, but since, the petitioners did not regularise his services, he filed the O.A. Case of the 4th respondents is one of total denial of the claims made by the respondent. It is stated that the respondent is a contract labour and he was never appointed by the Department and, therefore, he is not entitled for regularisation of his services in terms of GO Ms. No. 212 dated 22.4.1994. The Tribunal placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 13.4.2005 passed in W.P. No. 10282 of 1998 and orders of the Apex Court dated 27.2.2007 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 23679 of 2005 allowed the O.A. directing the petitioners herein to give effect to and to take follow up action in pursuance of the order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy thereof. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed by the respondents in the O.A. inter alia contending that the workers covered by W.P. No. 10282 of 1998 were continued without any break as per interim orders of this Court dated 23.1.2001 while the respondent herein was discontinued with effect from 20.12.2001, as the work of Taliperu Project was completed and, therefore, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. IN terms of GO Ms. No. 212 dated 22.4.1994, the persons appointed under various categories whether on daily wage basis or temporary basis and who completes five years of service as on the cut off dates i.e. 25.11.1993 are eligible for regularsiation of the services. The respondent claims that he was appointed for a period of 365 days at the maintenance wing of the dam, which requires continuance of the supervision of the respondent. It is also claim of the respondent that the 6th petitioner herein has indicated the name of the respondent as an NMR on daily wage in the statement dated 30.6.1994. In the light of these claims, the Tribunal, adverting to the order dated 13.4.2005 made by a Division Bench of this Court in WP No. 10282 of 1998 which was confirmed by the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.23679 of 2005, has, in our considered view, rightly allowed the O.A. The petitioners herein did not demonstrate as to how the respondent can be treated in a different way than the petitioners in W.P. No. 10282 of 1998, inasmuch the claim of petitioners that the respondent was terminated on 20.12.2001 is not substantiated. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal is perfectly justified in passing the impugned order. Having gone through the impugned order and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any illegality in the impugned order. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. ___________________ S.ASHOK KUMAR, J. April 28, 2008 MAS.