Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
P.Nagendra, Kadapa Dist. 5 Others vs Chairman M.D. A.P. Transco, Hyd 5 Others on 30 January, 2024
*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
+WRIT PETITION No.15272 OF 2010
%30.01.2024
#Between:
Syed Noor Basha, S/o.S.A.Sattar,
aged about 36 years, OCc: Watch
and Ward Personnel Cum
Security Guard, T.L.C.Stores,
A.P.Transco, Kadapa,
R/o.C/o.D.No.6/13, 220 KV Sub-
Station Quarters, Sankarapuram,
Kadapa District, Kadapa and 2
others.
...Petitioners
and
The Chairman and Managing
Director, A.P.Transco, Vidyuth
Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad
and 4 others
...Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri. JAYANTI S C SEKHAR
^Counsel for the Respondent/s : Sri. P R BALARAMI REDDY
SC FOR AP TRANSCO
+WRIT PETITION No.15282 OF 2010
%30.01.2024
#Between:
Yerragudi Ramakesavulu,
S/o.Y.Subba Rayudu, aged about
42 years, Occ: Watch and Ward
Personnel Cum Security Guard,
AP.S.P.D.C.L. SPM Sections,
Rajampet, Kadapa, R/o.1-35,
//2//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
Akkayapalli, Near ITA Circle,
Kadapa District and 2 others.
...Petitioners
and
The Chairman and Managing
Director, A.P.S.P.D.C.L, Near
Srinivasa Kalyana Mantapam,
Tirupathi, District Chittoor and 3
others.
...Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri. JAYANTI S C SEKHAR
^Counsel for the Respondent/s : Sri. P R BALARAMI REDDY
SC FOR AP TRANSCO
+WRIT PETITION No.32917 OF 2010
%30.01.2024
#Between:
T.Vijaya Vardhana Reddy,
S/o.T.Rami Reddy, Occ: Working
as lower division Clerk LDC in the
office of superintending Engineer
AP Transco T L SS Circle Kurnool,
R/o.Kurnool District and 10 others
...Petitioners
and
The Chairman & Managing
Director, A.P.Transco,
Khairatabad, Hyderabad and 7
others
//3//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
...Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri. JAYANTI S C SEKHAR
^Counsel for the Respondents : Sri. P LAXMA REDDY
SC FOR AP TRANSCO
+WRIT PETITION No.33147 of 2010
%30.01.2024
#Between:
R.Seshanna, S/o.R.Naganna, aged
about 36 years, Occ: Working as
Driver in the office of the A.D.E.Hot
Lines, TL&SS Circle, A.P.Transco,
Kurnool, R/o.Kurnool District and 4
others.
...Petitioners
and
The Chairman and Managing
Director, A.P. Transco,
Khairatabad, Hyderabad and 7
others.
...Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri. JAYANTI S C SEKHAR
^Counsel for the Respondents : Sri. N SIVA REDDY
SC FOR APTRANSCO
+WRIT PETITION No.15794 OF 2010
%30.01.2024
#Between:
P.Nagendra, S/o.P.Krishnaiah,
aged about 40 years, Occ: Driver,
Office of the Assistant Executive
//4//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
Engineer, TLC, Civil, Kadapa,
R/o.6/727-2, Senkarapuram,
Kadapa, District Kadapa and 5
others
...Petitioners
and
The Chairman and Managing
Director, A.P.Transco, Vidyuth
Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad
and 5 others
...Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri. JAYANTI S C SEKHAR
^Counsel for the Respondents : Sri. P R BALARAMI REDDY
SC FOR APTRANSCO
+WRIT PETITION No.9778 of 2014
%30.01.2024
#Between:
M.Madhu Mohan Reddy, S/o.late
Sri.M.Veera Sharabha Reddy, aged
about 43 years, Occ: Driver, Office of
the Divisional Engineer, Technical,
Circle Office, Kurnool,
R/o.H.No.44/108 B3, Prakash
Nagar, Kurnool and 5 others.
...Petitioners
and
The Chairman and Managing
Director, A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Corporate
Office, Mint Compound,
Hyderabad and 4 others.
...Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri. JAYANTI S C SEKHAR
^Counsel for the Respondents : Learned Government Pleader
for ENERGY
//5//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. 1993 (3) SCC 601
2. (2001) 7 SCC page 1
3. (2011) 2 SCC 429
This Court made the following:
//6//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
*HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
+WRIT PETITION No.15272 OF 2010
#Between:
Syed Noor Basha, S/o.S.A.Sattar,
aged about 36 years, OCc: Watch
and Ward Personnel Cum
Security Guard, T.L.C.Stores,
A.P.Transco, Kadapa,
R/o.C/o.D.No.6/13, 220 KV Sub-
Station Quarters, Sankarapuram,
Kadapa District, Kadapa and 2
others.
...Petitioners
and
The Chairman and Managing
Director, A.P.Transco, Vidyuth
Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad
and 4 others
...Respondents
+WRIT PETITION No.15282 OF 2010
#Between:
Yerragudi Ramakesavulu,
S/o.Y.Subba Rayudu, aged about
42 years, Occ: Watch and Ward
Personnel Cum Security Guard,
AP.S.P.D.C.L. SPM Sections,
Rajampet, Kadapa, R/o.1-35,
Akkayapalli, Near ITA Circle,
Kadapa District and 2 others.
...Petitioners
and
The Chairman and Managing
Director, A.P.S.P.D.C.L, Near
Srinivasa Kalyana Mantapam,
Tirupathi, District Chittoor and 3
others.
//7//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
...Respondents
+WRIT PETITION No.32917 OF 2010
#Between:
T.Vijaya Vardhana Reddy,
S/o.T.Rami Reddy, Occ: Working
as lower division Clerk LDC in the
office of superintending Engineer
AP Transco T L SS Circle Kurnool,
R/o.Kurnool District and 10 others
...Petitioners
and
The Chairman & Managing
Director, A.P.Transco,
Khairatabad, Hyderabad and 7
others
...Respondents
+WRIT PETITION No.33147 of 2010
#Between:
R.Seshanna, S/o.R.Naganna, aged
about 36 years, Occ: Working as
Driver in the office of the A.D.E.Hot
Lines, TL&SS Circle, A.P.Transco,
Kurnool, R/o.Kurnool District and 4
others.
...Petitioners
and
The Chairman and Managing
Director, A.P. Transco,
Khairatabad, Hyderabad and 7
others.
...Respondents
//8//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
+WRIT PETITION No.15794 OF 2010
#Between:
P.Nagendra, S/o.P.Krishnaiah,
aged about 40 years, Occ: Driver,
Office of the Assistant Executive
Engineer, TLC, Civil, Kadapa,
R/o.6/727-2, Senkarapuram,
Kadapa, District Kadapa and 5
others
...Petitioners
and
The Chairman and Managing
Director, A.P.Transco, Vidyuth
Soudha, Somajiguda, Hyderabad
and 5 others
...Respondents
+WRIT PETITION No.9778 of 2014
#Between:
M.Madhu Mohan Reddy, S/o.late
Sri.M.Veera Sharabha Reddy, aged
about 43 years, Occ: Driver, Office of
the Divisional Engineer, Technical,
Circle Office, Kurnool,
R/o.H.No.44/108 B3, Prakash
Nagar, Kurnool and 5 others.
...Petitioners
and
The Chairman and Managing
Director, A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Corporate
Office, Mint Compound,
Hyderabad and 4 others.
...Respondents
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 30.01.2024
//9//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may
be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of order may be marked
to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair
copy of the order?
Yes/No
_______________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
//10//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT PETITION Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917
of 2010, 33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 AND 9778 of 2014
COMMON ORDER :
The petitioners in the batch of writ petitions are aggrieved
by the in-action of the respondents in not regularizing
their services and have sought for regularization of their
services. As the grievance of the petitioners is common
and seek directions to the respondents for regularization
of their services. A common order is passed.
2. For the sake of brevity, the case of the petitioners is
discussed separately. The 1st petitioner in WP.No.15272 of
2010 is working as Watchman - Cum - Security Guard in
T.L.C. Stores, AP Transco, Kadapa since 22.02.1993. The
2nd petitioner is working as Watchman - Cum - Security
Guard since 01.05.1992. The 3rd petitioner is working as
Watchman - Cum - Security Guard since 01.07.1996. All
the petitioners were subsequently treated as working
under a Contractor from the year 2003-2004. The
petitioners claim that their services were routed through a
contractor continuously without any interruption. Though,
the contractors kept changing year on year, the nature of
//11//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
work of the petitioners did not change, but continued with
meager amount of wages. There is a disparity in wages in
so far as basic wage drawn by a watchman whose services
are regularized and the consolidated wage paid to the
petitioners.
3. The petitioners claim that, even in the absence of
contractors the services of the petitioners were continued.
After issuing GOMs.No.492, dated 08.07.1980 a memo
dated 12.12.1980 was issued by the Secretary, APSEB
requesting all the Superintendent Engineers to furnish the
information regarding the establishment employing less
than 20 workman under the Board engaged in such
abolished category of employment. The Chief Engineers
and Superintendent Engineers were directed not to engage
contract labour in the 33 abolished categories. The
petitioners submit that six of the workman who were
similarly placed as that of the petitioners had invoked the
jurisdiction of this Court seeking their regularization. This
Court in WA.No.1478 of 1999 had directed the
respondents therein to consider the cases of the
appellants in writ appeal for absorption and regularization
//12//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
as watch and ward of Security Guards. The SLP.No.2392
of 2000 filed by the respondents was dismissed.
Ultimately, the services of the appellants in the writ appeal
were regularized vide proceedings dated 08.02.2010. The
representation of the petitioners submitted in the month
of May, 2010 seeking regularization of their services has
not yielded any result. As such the writ petition is filed.
4. The 1st petitioner in WP.No.15794 of 2010 was engaged as
a Driver in the month of February, 1991 and from
01.04.1999 he is treated as a Contract Labourer. The
other petitioners are engaged as drivers on different dates,
however, are treated as Contract Labourers working under
a Contractor since the year 1999.
5. The petitioners claim that, they are entitled for
regularization of their services in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36,
dated 18.05.1997. The petitioners claim that some of the
drivers working with the respondents have sought for
regularization and filed WP.No.22170 of 1997 and this
Court vide order dated 08.11.2000 directed the
respondents to consider appoint the petitioners in the
existing vacancies or in the future vacancies. The Division
//13//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
Bench of this Court in WA.No.181 of 2001, dated
22.06.2004 confirmed the order of learned Single Judge.
The petitioners submit that six of the workman who were
similarly placed as that of the petitioners had invoked the
jurisdiction of this Court seeking their regularization. This
Court in WA.No.1478 of 1999 had directed the
respondents therein to consider the cases of the
appellants in writ appeal for absorption and regularization
as watch and ward of Security Guards. The SLP.No.2392
of 2000 filed by the respondents was dismissed.
Ultimately, the services of the appellants in the writ appeal
were regularized vide proceedings dated 08.02.2010.
6. The petitioners submit that an agreement dated
29.08.2010 was entered between the management of
APTRANSCO and the AP Electricity Employees Union,
wherein the management had agreed the demand of
employees union for recruiting number of drivers against
the existing number of driver posts. Letters were
addressed to the Government seeking permission to fill up
the vacant posts of drivers on regular basis. As there are
clear vacancies the petitioners are claiming that their case
//14//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
for regularization of their services were regularized by the
respondents.
7. The petitioners in WP.No.32917 of 2010 working as
LDC/Computer Operators/Typists. The petitioners are
working since 2005, 2003, 2001, 2002, 2009, 2008, 2005,
1997, 1995, 1996 and 2005 respectively. All the
petitioners were initially engaged directly, but
subsequently their services are routed through a
Contractor. The petitioners also rely upon the orders of
this Court passed in WA.No.1478 of 1999 and claim that
their services are ought to be regularized.
8. The petitioners further claim that the petitioners have
submitted their representations seeking regularizations,
however, there has been no response from the
respondents. As such, the petitioners claim for
regularization.
9. The petitioners in WP.No.9778 of 2014 are working as
drivers from 1990, 1992, 1990, 1991, 1993 and 2008
respectively. The services of the petitioners were routed
through a Contractor. The petitioners claim that they are
entitled for regularization on par with the case of the
//15//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
appellants which was considered in WA.No.1478 of 1999.
The representation of the petitioners seeking
regularization has not been dealt by the respondents.
10. The petitioners in WP.No.33147 of 2010 are engaged as
drivers in the year 1999, 1996, 2000, 2000 and 2006
respectively. Thereafter, their services were routed through
a contractor. The petitioners claim that they are entitled
for regularization on par with the case of the appellants
which was considered in WA.No.1478 of 1999. The
representation of the petitioners seeking regularization
has not been dealt by the respondents.
11. The petitioners in WP.No.15282 of 2010 were engaged as
watchman in the year 1989, 1995 and 1993. Their case is
similar to the case of the petitioners in WP.No.15272 of
2010 and the grounds raised by the petitioners are also
similar.
12. The grievance of the petitioners in all the writ petitioners
is similar and are commonly aggrieved by the in-action of
the respondents in regularizing their services. The
respondents have filed a counter and the primary ground
is that there is no employee, employer relationship
//16//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
between the petitioners and the respondents as the
petitioners are working under a contractor and not directly
working under the respondents/establishments.
13. The engagement of contract labour in certain category of
establishments as notified in GOMs.No.492 has been
abolished including the job profile of the petitioners in the
all the above writ petitions. It is also stated that the
petitioners are engaged temporarily by a contractor and
that the works which are awarded to the contractor are
also temporary in nature.
14. It is also submitted that the cases of other workers who
were working as watchman were considered for absorption
of regularization as per B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997
and that the same was withdrawn. Therefore, there was no
scheme or guidelines existing for regularization of services
of petitioners into respondents/establishments.
15. It is also submitted that the job profile of the petitioners is
not essential in nature to the respondents and the policy
matter of the respondents in abolishing contract labour in
certain categories cannot be found fault with.
//17//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
16. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on
the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court
WA.No.1267 of 2017 and 410 of 2018. The
respondent/corporation has filed the appeal against the
order of the learned Single Judge.
17. The Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the writ
appeals relying upon the principle laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, H.S.E.B Vs.
Suresh1. The Division Bench has also taken into account
the case(s) of similarly situated employees and dismissed
the appeals preferred by the respondent/corporation.
18. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed
reliance on the Judgment Steel Authority of India LTD.
and others Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and
others2 and also State of Rajasthan and others Vs.
Daya Lal and others3 and submits that the petitioners are
not entitled for the reliefs claimed for. The learned counsel
for the respondents submits that the judgment passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India
1999 (3) SCC 601
(2001) 7 SCC page 1
(2011) 2 SCC 429
//18//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
(supra2) would put to rest the controversy surrounding the
aspect of regularization of the contract labour. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and others Vs.
Dayalal and others (supra3) laid down the principles
relating to regularizations and parity in pay.
19. Facts on record make it clear that petitioners are engaged
on contract basis as watch and ward staff and drivers.
Some of the petitioners are engaged as Typists etc., It is
not in dispute that the services of the petitioners are
required continuously for the respondent organization.
Thus, duties and responsibilities entrusted to petitioners
are of perennial nature. It cannot be stated that the
services of the petitioners are no longer required and as
such there is no requirement of continuing the petitioners
either on contract, casual, daily basis.
20. The only premise on which claim of the petitioners is
opposed by the respondent company is petitioners were
engaged through contractor. This aspect was extensively
considered in WA.No. 1478 of 1999. Following the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh, Division Bench
of the composite High Court at Hyderabad observed that
//19//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
statutory body should not be permitted to violate the
statute with impunity and same would amount in unfair
labour practice. The Division Bench also observed that
only to avoid the statutory liabilities, the respondent
company put-forward an argument that appellants are
engaged as watchmen under a contractor. The Division
Bench further observed that corporation cannot be
permitted to employ contract labour against a regular post
especially when the work is of perennial nature.
Consequential directions were issued to regularize their
services.
21. Similar view is taken by learned single Judge in W P
21947 of 1999, which view is now affirmed and writ
appeal as well as S.L.P are dismissed. In fact, the learned
single Judge has directed consideration of regularization
of all similarly situated employees.
22. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners
that petitioners are similarly situated to the petitioners
in the earlier round of litigation, whereas, the relief is
granted to only to those persons. The petitioners cannot
//20//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
be denied the benefit extended to the other employees
who are similarly situated.
23. The principle laid down by the Division Bench in Writ
Appeal 1478 of 1999 has attained finality and same
principle applies to the petitioners and petitioners are
entitled to similar relief as granted to the writ appellants
therein. Having regard to the directions issued by this
Court in W P No. 21947 of 1999 which directions have
become final, action of respondents in not extending the
benefit of regularization to all similarly situated persons
and compelling the individuals to invoke jurisdiction of
this Court cannot be appreciated. The respondent
instead of recognizing the services of the petitioners and
extend the benefit of regularizing their services as was
done in the case of other employees who are similarly
situated are contributing to protracting the litigation.
The respondents ought to have acted appropriately in
dealing with the services of the petitioners.
24. It is also not in dispute that petitioners have been
working for the last more than 20 years; no adverse
remark against them is placed on record. Thus, it can be
//21//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
safely concluded that they have rendered satisfactory
service all along and service rendered by them is
perennial in nature.
25. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. Respondents
are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for
absorption and regularization for the posts the
petitioners are found suitable as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be
no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, shall
stand closed.
_______________________
JUSTICE HARINATH.N
Dt. 30.01.2024
KGM
//22//
WP.Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917 of 2010,
33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 & 9778 of 2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N
WRIT PETITION Nos.15272 of 2010, 15282 of 2010, 32917
of 2010, 33147 of 2010, 15794 of 2010 AND 9778 of 2014
Dated 30.01.2024
KGM
