IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:6719 of 2000 Between: Pativada Ramu Naidu and others ..... PETITIONERS AND The AP Transmission Corporation and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR. P.B.VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the respondents:MR. P.R.BALARAMI REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to absorb the petitioners in the posts of Lower Division Clerk/Typist/Sub-Engineer in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. The petitioners are claiming to have worked as contract labourers under the control of respondent No.4 in various divisions. They filed this writ petition for consideration of their cases for absorption as Lower Division Clerks/Typists/Sub-Engineers in terms of B.P.Ms.Nos.36 and 37, dated 18.05.1997. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is inter alia averred that in Eastern Power Distribution Company and AP TRANSCO, the Civil, Electrical and Maintenance Works are being entrusted on contract basis by paying unit rates after calling for open/limited tenders and get such works awarded to the lowest tenderers. It is further averred that AP TRANSCO/AP EPDCL, Visakhapatnam has no obligation towards the labour employed by the contractors and that this aspect was clearly specified in the conditions of the agreement entered into with the contractors. No reply affidavit is filed controverting the averments contained in the counter-affidavit. Unless the petitioners are able to show that the respondents have engaged them either directly or through an authorised contractor for executing the work entrusted by the respondents, the petitioners cannot be termed as contract labourers coming under the two Board Proceedings, namely, B.P.Ms.Nos.36 and 37, dated 18.06.1997. The learned counsel for the petitioners is not present at the hearing to point out any illegality in the stand taken by the respondents. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.8858 of 2000 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 31st DECEMBER, 2008. kvni