HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.29631 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner states that he is engaged as Shramik, on contract basis, in the Tandur Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. Recently, the Corporation issued notification, inviting applications for the posts of Shramiks, in different regions of the State. The age limit is stipulated as 30 years, with relaxation to the extent of five years in favour of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Class candidates. The candidates with ITI in Diesel Mechanic are made eligible to apply. The petitioner contends that he is working as Shramik, as contract labour, for the past several years, and if that is taken into account, he would be within the age limit. He seeks relaxation, as to the age limit to the extent of the service rendered by him, as contract labour. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India v. National Union Waterfront Workers[1]. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The notification is clear, as regards the qualification and the age limits. Admittedly, the petitioner has crossed the 30 years of age, and even if relaxation to the extent of five years is given, to the candidates who belong to SC, ST and BC, he does not stand to benefit. The petitioner contends that he is working, as contract labour, as Shramik since 2002 onwards, and that the Corporation did not undertake the recruitment for the past more than a decade. 4. It is no doubt true that in Steel Authority of India’s case (supra), the Supreme Court held that, in case, the appropriate Government issues a notification under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short ‘the Act’), prohibiting engagement of contract labour, in a particular type of activity and the principal employer, in turn, initiates steps for recruitment of the persons on regular basis, the contract labour shall be entitled to be extended the benefit of relaxation of age limit to the extent of service rendered by them, in that capacity. 5. In the instant case, the petitioner has not placed before this Court any notification referable to Section 10 of the Act. It is only when the notification of that nature is issued that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court gets attracted. Simply because the petitioner was engaged as contract labour, he cannot be conferred with the benefit of relaxation of age limit to the detriment of all other candidates. 6. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. November 29, 2010. KTL [1] (2001) 7 SCC 1