IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15920 of 2002 Between: O.Chiranjeevulu, S/o Ankaiah, R/o Mopur Village, Dakkili Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle- A.P.S.E.B., Vidyut Bhavan, A.K.Nagar, Nellore. 2 The Assistant Engineer, A.P.Transco., Venkatagiri. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.LAXMIKANTH FOR MR.P.R.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents:MR.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 allowing the petitioner to attend his duties as illegal. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondents to absorb him on regular basis. The petitioner is an Ex-Contract Labourer. He applied for regularization against appropriate post and as his case was not considered, he filed Writ Petition No.27245 of 1997, which was disposed of by this Court with the direction to the respondents to consider his case. In pursuance of the said direction, respondent No.1 issued letter, dated 21.05.1998, rejecting the petitioner’s claim for absorption on the ground that he did not work under a licensed contractor. The petitioner has not questioned this letter. However, four years later, he filed the present writ petition, wherein the above- mentioned relief was claimed. At the hearing, Sri Laxmikanth, learned counsel representing Sri P.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reason for rejection contained in letter, dated 21.05.1998 of respondent No.1 cannot be sustained in law in view of the decision taken by this Court in Writ Petition No.1549 of 1998, dated 25.11.1998, which has been followed in several subsequent orders including order, dated 12.02.2009 in Writ Petition No.2698 of 1999. He further submitted that though his case for absorption was rejected, he was continued as contract labourer till the year 2001. Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner, whose case for absorption was turned down as far back as 1998, failed to question the said order and allowed the same to become final. On instructions, he also disputed the claim of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was continued as contract labourer till the year 2001. Though it is true that this Court in a number of cases held that being engaged by the unlicensed contractors does not disqualify the contract labourers for being considered under B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997, the fact, however, remains that rejection of the petitioner’s claim for absorption was made as far back as 21.05.1998 and the same has not been questioned by the petitioner. Four years after the said rejection, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that 50% vacancies, which are earmarked for absorption under B.P.Ms.No.36 have already been filled up. As the petitioner failed to question the order of rejection at appropriate time and before the vacancies are filled up, no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this length of time. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th JANUARY, 2009. kvni