IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.14446 of 1999 Between: Gopu Somaiah, S/o. Mallaiah Ex-Casual Labour, A.P. Transmission Corporation Ltd., (APSEB) Warangal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. Transmission Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Chief Engineer, (O&M), (APSEB) Warangal. 2 The A.P. Transmission Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. .....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, Order or Director more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for absorption as per B.P.Ms.No. 36 dt. 18-5-97, though the petitioner is fully qualified and eligible, as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to absorb the petitioner in to respondent organization services as per B.P.Ms.No. 36 dt.18-5-97 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.EATHAKOTA VENKATA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for absorption in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997, as illegal and arbitrary. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner claims to have been engaged as a Contract Labourer through licenced contractor i.e., National Buildings Construction Corporation Limited from 17.08.1978. His grievance is that his case was not considered by the respondents in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. No counter-affidavit is filed. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that B.P.Ms.No.36 was withdrawn vide orders dated 30.08.2006 in T.O.O.No.179. However, in the said proceedings the said withdrawal was subject to the condition that pending cases as on that date will be considered in accordance with the said B.P.Ms. Since this writ petition has been pending, withdrawal of B.P.Ms.No.36 does not bar the petitioner from being considered. In the absence of any counter-affidavit, it is not possible for this Court to give a finding whether the petitioner was eligible for absorption in terms of the said B.P.Ms. or not. As the petitioner’s claim that his case was not considered has not been denied, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 26.12.2008 va