IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.No.1708 of 2004 Between: G.Narasimha Rao & Others …..Petitioners And State of A.P., rep. By its Secretary, Endowment Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others …..Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.1708 of 2004 ORDER This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners in their respective posts in the 3rd respondent temple, Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy vari Devasthanam, with all consequential benefits. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that initially they have been appointed as contract labour in the 3rd respondent’s temple in the year 1998 and they are being paid 0.50 p.s., per meal and Rs.5/- per kg., for prasadam. Since then they are discharging the duties entrusted by the authorities. It is submitted by them that similarly situated contract labours working in the Srisailam Devasthanam were being paid consolidated amount of Rs.79/-. It is further submitted that some persons, who were appointed as NMRs and subsequently converted as contract labour, had filed W.P. No.13450 of 1991 and this Court was pleased to grant the pay scale and regularisation. As they are similarly situated contract workers, they are entitled to the said benefits. Hence, the present writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, denying the averments of the petitioners, counter affidavit has been filed, inter alia, submitted that the Devasthanam will have seasonal rush about 70 to 80 days in a year and it has sufficient cadre strength to meet the workload in ordinary days. In rush season, to meet the temporary workload, the labour, like the petitioners, are being engaged through a contractor, who will be paid at piece rates, i.e., to the extent of work they have attended. The said Devasthanam never engaged the petitioners directly and there is no master and servant relationship between them and their services were not covered by any valid appointment order. The order passed by this Court in the writ petition referred to by the petitioners is not applicable to the case of the petitioners as the same was passed in respect of NMRs whose services were engaged prior to 1991. As the petitioners were not even engaged in any capacity by the respondent Devasthanam, regularisation of their services does not arise. The respondents have categorically denied the submission of the petitioners that they have worked for more than seven years. The attendance register and pay slips filed by the petitioners were not at all concerned with the Devasthanam and more over it will not prove the case of the petitioners that they are working for the last seven years or other. In view of the above, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The main grievance of the petitioners is that they are working under the 3rd respondent’s Devasthanam for meagre amount for the last seven years and whereas, similarly situated persons in other Devasthanams are getting more amounts to them. Further, it is the claim of the petitioners that some persons who were appointed as N.M.Rs. and subsequently converted as contract labour have got judicial order for pay scale and regularisation. Therefore, they are also entitled to the same benefit as they are working under the 3rd respondent’s temple as contract labour. The claim of the petitioners is that they are working as contract workers under the 3rd respondent’s Devasthanam. The said Devasthanam is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The issue of regularisation is a matter of policy decision of the Government by issuing Government Orders. The specific contention of the respondents in their counter is that they never engaged the petitioners in any capacity. Therefore, the question of relief sought for by them does not arise. Contradicting the denial of averments of the petitioners by the respondents, no reply has been filed by the petitioners on the aspect of their engagement. From a perusal of the proceedings, this Court on 30.01.2004, while issuing Rule nisi directed the respondents to continue the services of the petitioners in the 3rd respondent’s Devasthanam, pending disposal of this writ petition. Now, the fact is that the said interim direction is in force as on today. As the petitioners did not file any reply, contradicting the counter averments, and for want of more information with regard to the service particulars of the petitioners in the 3rd respondent’s Devasthanam, no direction, as sought for by the petitioners, can be passed to the authorities concerned. But, however, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following direction: The petitioners are at liberty to make appropriate detailed representation showing the factual position with regard to their service rendered in the 3rd respondent’s Devasthanam seeking appropriate relief, within a period of one month, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such representation by the petitioners, the respondents are directed to consider and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within one month, from the date of receipt of such representation. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 27.01.2011 Tjmr/LSK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO. 1708 OF 2004 DATE: 27.01.2011