IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24722 of 2003 Between: P.V. Narasimha Rao S/o. P.V.S. Rama Rao R/o. Veerapallipalem, Inavalli mandal, Amalapuram Taluk, . E.G.District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Transmission Corporation of A.P. Limited Rep., by its Chairman & Managing Director Vidyuthsoudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad 2 A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited rep., through its Chairman and Managing Director Visakhapatnam 3 Superintending Engineer, Operation, Electrical A.P.Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited Eastern Street, Eluru, W.G.District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR. N.SREEDHAR REDDY FOR MR.K.RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents:MR.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 set aside letter, dated 12.09.2003 issued by respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner’s claim for regularization in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 has been turned down. The petitioner, who claims to be a contract labourer earlier filed Writ Petition No.5064 of 1999 in this Court, when his claim for regularization was not considered in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997. In view of the directions given by this Court on 07.07.2000, respondent No.3 considered the petitioner’s case and rejected the same through his letter, dated 12.09.2003, on the ground that the petitioner was engaged to do piecework under chit agreement. Feeling aggrieved by the said communication, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, it is inter alia stated that the petitioner worked in connection with chit agreement No.12/97-98 whose value was Rs.2,500/- and that as per Board’s memo, dated 11.08.1999, the claims of the contract labour shall not be considered, unless the contractor engaged not less than 5 workmen in connection with any contract got executed by the unlicensed contractor. The respondents have thus, taken the stand that the petitioner does not satisfy the requirement of the said memo. At the hearing, Sri P.R.Bala Rami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents placed before this Court a copy of memo, dated 11.08.1999. A perusal of the said memo shows that in respect of contract labour, who are engaged by the unlicensed contractors under the chit agreement, their cases may be considered for regularization provided number of such contract labour supplied by the particular unlicensed contractor, is five or more in respect of a given work and that contract labour working as on 18.05.1997 alone are eligible for consideration. The learned Standing Counsel also placed before this Court a copy of the Measurement Book pertaining to chit agreement bearing No.12/97-98, which shows that the work was commenced on 08.05.1997 and completed on 25.05.1997. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that from the value of work, which is shown to be Rs.2,500/- in the Measurement Book and the work having been executed from 08.05.1997 to 25.05.1997, it can be safely presumed that the contractor would not have engaged five labourers in connection with the chit agreement. I have not felt inclined to accept this submission. Copy of the Measurement Book shows that the work was commenced on 08.05.1997 and it was completed on 25.05.1997. It does not contain the actual number of dates on which the work was executed. It would quite well be that the work might have been completed in a day or two and merely going by the dates of commencement and completion, no presumption could be drawn that the entire work could have been executed on all the days commencing from 08.05.1997 to 25.05.1997. The petitioner is competing for a public employment in pursuance of a scheme made by the respondents. Therefore, his claim cannot be rejected even without proper consideration by drawing a presumption without definite material against the petitioner. Even in respect of work of the value of Rs.2,500/-, there is a probability of contractor engaging 5 labourers and the work being completed in a day or two. When such a possibility cannot be ruled out, there is no justification for the respondents to infer that the contractor under whom the petitioner worked would not have engaged five labourers in connection with chit agreement No.12/97-98, on the basis of which, the petitioner made his claim seeking regularization. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged by the unlicensed contractor and the contract was in force as on 18.05.1997, the date of eligibility for a person to be considered for regularization. For the above-mentioned reasons, the impugned letter is quashed. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh by treating him as an eligible contract labourer for regularization under B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th FEBRUARY, 2009. kvni