THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 6498 OF 2008 O R D E R: The petitioners claim to have worked as Contract Labour, under a Labour Contractor, by name N.V.L. Narasimha Rao, at Kamareddy, between 1996 and 1997. They were said to have been engaged, during the course of execution of work entrusted to the contractor, by the then Electricity Board. The Electricity Board issued B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.5.1997, providing for regularization of service of contract labour, against 50% of the vacancies of certain categories. Complaining that the cases of the petitioners were not considered in terms thereof, the petitioners approached this court, by filing W.P.No.8161 of 2005 & Batch. The writ petitions were disposed of by this court, by a common order dated 3.1.2007, leaving it open to the petitioners to produce the material, in respect of their claim and directing the respondents to verify the genuineness thereof. They were also directed to pass reasoned order. The petitioners submitted their claim before the respondents, in pursuance of the said order. The latter, in turn, got examined the matter, through the Vigilance Department, and ultimately, passed a reasoned order on 28.2.2008, holding that the claim of the petitioners is not genuine. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Sri M. Narasimloo, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the mere fact that the labour contractor did not produce his record, cannot be a reason to reject the claims of the petitioners. He contends that apart from the record maintained by the contractor, the Department was also under obligation to maintain it, and a verification thereof would have proved that the claims of the petitioners are genuine. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, denying the claims of the petitioners. Reference is made to the vigilance enquiry and other verifications., and it is alleged that the petitioners never worked under any Labour Contractor, in relation to the works of the Electricity Board. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the cases of the petitioners were examined, strictly in accordance with the directions issued by this court, and that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. It is only the contract labour, that have been engaged at a particular point of time, that were entitled to be regularized, in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36. On an earlier occasion, the cases of the petitioners were rejected, on the ground that they failed to prove the fact that they have been engaged by labour contractor. When they approached this court, a specific direction was issued to the petitioners, as well as to the respondents, as regards the verification of record. On their part, the respondents got a vigilance enquiry conducted. The contractor, who issued the certificates, did not produce any record, and categorically stated that he did not maintain the same. An official, who endorsed on the certificates, refused to appear in the enquiry. At one point of time, he deposed that he no doubt endorsed on the certificates, but did not verify any record, such as Attendance Register, Acquittance Register, etc. With this back ground, the petitioners cannot be said to have proved their cases that they have been engaged as contract labour, on an earlier occasion. Under these circumstances, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ 1st July 2008 PAN