IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.336 OF 2004 Between: T.Srinivas Goud and others. .... PETITIONERS AND 1. Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad Rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director. 2. Joint Managing Director (HRD) A.P. Transco, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad. 3. General Manager (Per) Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: O R D E R: The petitioners, nine in number, challenge the proceedings in the letters bearing No.GM (PERSL)/AS(IR)/PO-II/A1/339/2001 dated 19.09.2002, 18.09.2002 and 24.09.2002 rejecting their claims for appointment under BPMS No.36 dated 18.05.1997 and seek a consequential direction to the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh Limited ( for short ‘AP Transco’) to appoint them as Typists on regular basis. 2. The petitioners claim to have worked as Typists on contract basis in the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, the predecessor in title of the A.P. Transco and other sister organizations. They claim regularization of their services under B.P.M.S No.36 dated 18.05.1997, whereby 50% of the vacancies in particular posts were directed to be filled up from the categories of Village Electricity Workers, Ex-Casual Labourers and Ex-Contract Labour. The petitioners sought consideration of their cases under the above B.P.M.S and they were subjected to the selection interview on 07.01.2002. It is their grievance that through the proceedings impugned in this writ petition, their claims were rejected on the ground that they were covered by the Award dated 24.10.1996 in I.D. No.78/92 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad. They cited the cases of persons similarly situated being given the benefit of B.P.M.S No.36 dated 18.05.1997 in the sister organization of A.P. Transco, Viz. the A.P.Genco. 3. In its counter-affidavit, the respondent-organization averred that the petitioners were engaged by various typewriting institutes to which it entrusted work on contract basis. Reference was made to the orders passed by this Court in two earlier writ petitions i.e., W.P. Nos.33064 of 1997 and 9091 of 1998, involving three of the petitioners herein, whereby this Court directed the respondent organization to consider their cases. Pursuant thereto, it appears that the Chief Engineer, the Functional Head under the erstwhile A.P.State Electricity Board, also intimated the number of existing vacancies in the post of typists in his wing. The respondent-organization stated that the cases of the petitioners were rejected citing the reason of the Award dated 24.10.1996 in I.D. No.78/1992. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are being continued in service pursuant to the status-quo order passed by this Court on 07.01.2004 in this writ petition. The said order was made absolute by a subsequent order of this Court passed on 22.12.2004. 5. In the light of the aforestated facts and circumstances, the issue for consideration is whether the rejection of the petitioners’ claim under B.P.M.S.No.36 dated 18.05.1997 is sustainable? 6. Sri K.Vasudeva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, placed before me the orders passed in Writ Petition No.29652 of 1997 and batch and Writ Petition Nos.9256 of 2001 and 21357 of 2002. The order dated 26.09.2000 passed by a learned Judge of this Court in W.P. No.29652 of 1997 and batch demonstrates that the rejection of the cases of the petitioners therein under B.P.M.S No.36 dated 18.05.1997 citing the Award in I.D. No.78/1992 as a reason, was not accepted. Similarly in the common order dated 04.03.2009 passed by a learned Judge in W.P. Nos.9256 of 2001 and 21357 of 2002, the stand of the respondent-organization that the Award in I.D. No.78/1992 can be a ground for denial of claims under B.P.M.S No.36 dated 18.05.1997 was rejected. The learned Judge pointed out that the said Award was passed earlier in point of time to the issuance of B.P.M.S.No.36 and, therefore, the same cannot be a ground for rejection of consideration of the claims under B.P. M.S No.36. The learned Judge also pointed out that there need not be any employee-employer relationship so long as the persons claiming under B.P.M.S No.36 fall within the expression “CONTRACT LABOUR”. Accordingly, the learned Judge directed consideration of the claims of the petitioners in those cases treating them as Ex-contract labour, subject to their filing proof of having been engaged by their respective contractors. The respondent-organization was permitted to verify the genuineness of such documents and consider the claims of the petitioners therein in terms of B.P.M.S No.36 dated 18.05.1997. 7. In the light of the orders passed by this Court in the above cases, I see no reason to take a different view. The facts on record in the present case clearly establish that the petitioners were engaged as job typists through the contractors and they have been continuing in service in the respondent- organization for the past several years. The only ground of rejection of their claims under B.P.M.S No.36 dated 18.05.1997, as is evident from the impugned proceedings, is the Award in I.D. No.78/1992. The same is not a sustainable ground of rejection being earlier in point of time to the issuance of B.P.M.S No. 36. Further the petitioners herein were not even parties to the said I.D. Therefore, the Award passed therein cannot be held to be binding on them. 8 The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed, setting aside the impugned proceedings. The respondents are directed to consider the claims of the petitioners for absorption in accordance with B.P.M.S No.36 dated 18.05.1997, ignoring the Award dated 24.10.1996 in I.D. No.78/1992, on the file of the Industrial Tribunal – I, Hyderabad. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 11th September, 2009 YVL