HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION No. 8595 OF 2010 Thursday, the Twenty Ninth Day of July, Two Thousand and Ten Between Smt. U.Narasamma and eleven others Petitioners AND The Divisional Forest Officer, Wild Life Management, Nagarjunasagar, Nalgonda District and others Respondents ORAL ORDER: The proposed action of the respondents in discontinuing the services of the petitioners who are contractual appointees working under Vana Samrakshana Samithies and diverting their services through outsourcing agencies in terms of GO Rt. No. 4459 Finance (SMPC) Department dated 27.12.2006 without implementing the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, is questioned in this writ petition. The petitioners were appointed on contractual basis on different dates in different categories to assist the regular staff from 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. and are being paid consolidated pay through Vana Samrakshana Samithi Schemes. While so, the Government by GO Rt. No. 4459 Finance Department dated 27.12.2006 has laid down policy for engaging personnel on outsourcing basis through the Selection Committees headed by the District Collectors and under that premise, it is stated that the first respondent has informed the petitioners that their services will be discontinued from Vana Samrakshana Samithies and in turn will be lent only through outsourcing agencies. Hence, the present writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Forests. At the outset, learned Government Pleader for Forests contended that the petitioners cannot seek redressal of their grievance invoking writ jurisdiction, without approaching the Administrative Tribunal in the first instance and, hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that sole ground. Per contra, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition inasmuch as the petitioners are contractual employees working under the Vana Samrakshana Samithy scheme and when their services are being diverted to be engaged by the outsourcing agencies without implementing the provisions of the Contract Labour (Abolition & Regulation) Act, 1970, the writ petition is maintainable and sought to place reliance on the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Principal Secretary, HM & FW Department, Hyderabad and others Vs. P.Sulochanamma and others ([1]). He further contends that pursuant to this decision, the A.P. Administrative Tribunal has constituted a Full Bench and it is held that the Original Application is not maintainable before the Tribunal and the aggrieved parties have to approach the High Court. The factual matrix is not in dispute. Adverting to the maintainability of the writ petition, a Division Bench of this court in Sulochanamma’s case, referred to above, while dealing with the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal as contained in Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, has held that clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof clearly refers to civil services or a civil post under the State, which is sine qua non for approaching the State Administrative Tribunal for reliefs relating to recruitment, matters connecting to recruitment to any civil service of the State or any civil post under the State. It is further observed by the Division Bench that Rule 9(b) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules clearly excludes a contract appointee from being regarded as a member of the service and thereby a contract appointee cannot be said to hold any post under any service of the State nor can be said to hold a civil post. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench in the above case. The Division Bench was dealing with a case where the services of the Multipurpose Health Assistants (Female), who were selected and appointed on contract basis against reserved posts due to non-availability of candidates to fill up roster points, were terminated. In such circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners is right in contending that the facts in the present case and the facts of the case before the Division Bench are not alike and, therefore, the ratio laid down in the said decision cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. This apart, the preamble of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 makes it clear the present O.A. shall have to be entertained by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. The preamble of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 reads as under: An Act to provide for the adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India or of any corporation or society owned or controlled by the Government in pursuance of Article 323-A of the Constitution and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. (emphasis added) It is not in dispute that Vana Samrakshana Samithies are controlled by the Government and this aspect of the issue as regards the schemes which are controlled by the Government, was neither dealt with nor any finding is recorded thereon by the Division Bench. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Division Bench in Sulochanamma’s case, cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Inasmuch there is no dispute in regard to the fact that the Vana Samrakshana Samithies are controlled by the Government, this court is of the considered view that the petitioners have to approach the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, in the first instance. In that premise, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with the above observation. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari July 29, 2010 MAS [1] 2010 (2) ALT 187 (D.B.)