IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16010 of 1999 Between: 1.A.D.V.Prasad, S/o. Yerakaiah. Ramachandra Rao Pet, Tadepallegudem-2. 2.G.Edukondalu Rao, S/o. Satyam. R/o. Arugolanu, Tadepallegudam, West Godavari. 3.A.V.R.Shekarbabu, S/o. Yerakaiah. R.R.Pet, Tadepallegudam, West Godavari. 4.K.Venkata Gopal Siva, S/o. Kondala Rao. C/o. Yerakaiah, Ramachandra Rao Pet, Tadepallegudem, West Godavari. 5.N.Purushotham, S/o. N.Subbaiah. 4/650, Guntha Bazar, Cuddapah. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Director/Chairman, A.P.Transco, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 2 Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, A.P.Transco, Eluru. 3 Chief Engineer, Operation Circle, A.P.Transco, Eluru. 4 Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, Vidyut Bhavan, A.P.Transco, Cuddapah. 5 Chief Engineer, Operation Circle, Viduyut Bhavan, A.P.Transco, Cuddapah. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT.S.V.INDIRA Counsel for the Respondents: 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 direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners. Heard Smt.S.V.Indira, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.R.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioners, who claimed to have worked as contract labourers, seek their absorption as regular employees of respondent No.1-Corporation. They have relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court, wherein directions were given to regularize the services of the daily wage workers, who completed 240 days of service. The law on the issue of regularization has got crystallized, after this writ petition is filed with the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3)[1], which is reiterated recently by the Supreme Court in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand[2]. In view of these two authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court, the petitioners cannot claim absorption as of right merely on account of their working as daily wage labourers or contract labourers for specific periods. In view of the same, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, W.P.M.P.No.19753 of 1999 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J. Date: 19.12.2008 VGB [1] (2006) 4 SCC 1 [2] (2008) 10 SCC 1