IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 14155 of 1998 Between: 1 V.Rajender, S/o. Sri Ramulu. O/o.Superintending Engineer, APSEB., Operation, Warangal. 2 P.Shankar, S/o. Sri Rajaiah. O/o.Superintending Engineer, APSEB., Operation, Warangal. 3 V.Lingaiah, S/o. Durgaiah. O/o.Divisional Engineer, OECF Constructions, APSEB., Warangal. 4 A.Ravi, S/o. Sri Paiaiah. O/o.Divisional Engineer, OECF Constructions, APSEB., Warangal. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 A.P.S.E.B., Rep. Secretary. Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad. 2 Chief Engineer, A.P.S.E.B., Warangal. 3 Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, APSEB., Warangal. 4 Divisional Engineer, Construction OECF., APSEB., Warangal. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ or order or direction especially one in the nature of Mandamus; i) declare that the Board Memo No. DP/DIR/DM(OR) PO.IV/11/98, dated 20/04/1998 cannot be attracted to disengage the petitioners from service. ii) direct the respondents to absorb the petitioners in their respective posts as per various board proceedings and grant all consequential benefits, iii) and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms.G.SWATI Counsel for the Respondent No.: P.R.BALARAMI REDDY(SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the Board Memo No.DP/DIR/DM(OR) PO.IV/11/98 dated 20.4.1998 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents to absorb the petitioners in their respective posts as per the policy of the Government. It is the case of the petitioners that first petitioner was working as Gardener and petitioners 2 to 4 are working as Watchman from 25.11.1994, 25.11.1995, January 1995 and January 1995 respectively. While the matter stood thus, the respondent Board issued B.P.(P&G Per) Ms.No.36 dated 18.5.1997 for absorption of contract labour and as per the said BPMs, they are entitled for regular absorption into the service of APSEB. In this regard, petitioners made representations to the respondents, but there was no response. On the other hand, they were informed that in view of Memo No.DP/DIR/DM(IR)/PO.IV/11/98 dated 20.4.1998, the contract labour system was abolished and the 33 abolished categories would be considered for the purpose of absorption into service of APSEB as per B.P.Ms.No.36. It is the grievance of the petitioners that in spite of their best efforts, they were not absorbed into the service of APSEB. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents asserting that the services of the petitioners were terminated as early as on 1.5.1998. The petitioners are contract labours and there was no master and servant relationship. Apart from that the category of Gardener and Watchman do not form part of B.P.Ms.No.33 dated 18.5.1997, therefore considering their cases under B.P.Ms.No.36 with a view to fill up 50% of vacancies for initial recruitment for certain cadres among the casual labour does not arise. Petitioners did not satisfy the criteria as required under B.P.Ms.No.36, therefore they are not entitled for regularization. The averments made in the counter affidavit clearly indicate that since the category of Gardeners and Watchman are not included in the 33 abolished categories, petitioners are not entitled for absorption. No reply is filed denying this fact. In view of the same, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 4.4.2008 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.14155 of 1998 4.4.2008