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 : 15984 of 1999 Between: 1.Merugumala Venkata Sri Ram, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, R/o.Prakasanagar, Rajahmundry-533103, East Godavari District. 2.Badam Naga Sathish, S/o.Venkata Rao, R/o.Prakashnagar, Rajahmundry-533105- East Godavari District. 3.Gangiredla Satyanarayana, S/o.Ramam, R/o.D.No.80-12-2, Koka Bhaskaramma nagar, A.V.Appa Rao Rajahmundry-533103. WP is dismissed as withdraw in so far as the petitioner No.3 is concerned as per Court Order is WPMP32833/01 dt28-12-01 ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh TRANSCO, Rep. by its The Superintending Engineer the Circle, Godavai Bund, Near Kumari Talkies, Rajahmundry-533101 East Godavari District. 2 The Andhra Pradesh TRANSCO, Rep. by its The Member Secretary- cum-Chairman, Vidyut Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-49 .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.NARASIMHA RAO 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 Sri P.Narasimha Rao, 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.19721 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