THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2851 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioners state that they have been rendering the service to the Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Limited, respondent No.1 herein, as Contract Labour for the past several years. In the year 2006, respondent No.1 issued a notification inviting applications for appointment of Junior Linemen on contract basis. The Contract Labour that are already working have been given an opportunity to apply and some benefits were also conferred upon them. The cases of the petitioners, however, were not considered on the ground that they crossed the age limit stipulated in the notification. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 filed W.P.No.22580 of 2006 and petitioner No.3 filed W.P.No.24580 of 2006. The writ petitions were allowed and it was directed that the respondents shall consider the issue of extending the benefit of age relaxation in terms of Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Department Operation and Subordinate Service Rules (for short ‘the Rules’). The respondents, however, filed W.A.No.21 of 2007 against the orders in the writ petitions. Through its order, dated 04.11.2009, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal and has set aside the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. An observation, however, was made to the effect that liberty is reserved to the petitioners to agitate their rights with reference to the restriction of age and relaxation thereof in the notification, whenever such situation arises. The petitioners contend that they made a representation in terms of the observation made by the Division Bench and complain that the respondents are not extending the benefit of age relaxation. It is also stated that in compliance with the interim directions issued in the writ petitions filed by them earlier, the respondents considered their cases and empanelled them on finding them eligible in other respects. They seek directions to the respondents for relaxing the age limit. Heard Sri S.Ravindranath, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.Lakshma Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The notification did not provide for any relaxation of age limit in favour of the employees working on contract basis though weightage of their service was given to certain extent. Admittedly, the petitioners have crossed the age limit stipulated in the notification. The writ petitions filed by them were allowed and a direction was issued to the respondents to extend the benefit of relaxation of age limit in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules. However, the said directions were reversed by the Division Bench of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. National Union Water Front Workers[1]. This Court would certainly have considered the feasibility of verifying the ratio in the said judgment vis-à-vis the facts of this case but for the fact that the directions issued for relaxation of age limit in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners earlier were set aside by the Division Bench. It is only the Division Bench that can further examine the matter in the context of age limit and not a Bench of inferior strength. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. It is, however, left open to the petitioners to file an application of review or for other relief before the Division Bench in case they are of the view that the order passed by the Division Bench does not accord with law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:10.10.2011 kdl [1] 2001 AIR SCW 3574