Telangana High Court
Supdt. Engineer, Apcpdcl, Secbad ... vs B.Suresh, Hyd. on 22 February, 2022
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
1
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL No.732 of 2009
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the orders passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16922 of 2007 dated 03.02.2009.
02. Heard Sri P.B.Balarami Reddy, learned Standing
Counsel for the appellants and Sri Venkat Reddy Donthi Reddy,
learned counsel for the respondent.
03. It has been contended by the appellants that the
respondent was employed as a contract labour with the then
Erstwhile A.P.S.E.B. and the appellants have come up with
B.P(P&G.PER).Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997 wherein a decision was
taken by the appellants for absorption of ex-casual labour, village
electricity workers and contract labour to an extent of 50% of the
existing vacancies as on 18.05.1997 and the respondent workman
was engaged as contract worker and the case of the respondent was
considered and the same was rejected vide Proceedings dated
16.01.2007 as respondent was not coming within the 50% of the
vacancies which were earmarked for contract workers for
absorption, but the learned Single Judge has erroneously disposed
of the writ petition by setting aside the orders of rejection dated
16.01.2007 and directed that the case of the respondent should be
re-considered in accordance with B.P(P&G.PER).Ms.No.36 dated
18.05.1997, which is contrary to the Rules and Policy of the
appellants. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ
Appeal by setting aside the orders passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.16922 of 2007 dated 03.02.2009.
04. Sri Venkat Reddy Donthi Reddy, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent had contended that the respondent
has worked with the appellants and he was fully eligible and
qualified to be considered in terms of B.P(P&G.PER).Ms.No.36 dated
18.05.1997 and the learned Single Judge has only directed to
consider the case of respondent and pass appropriate orders in
accordance with B.P(P&G.PER).Ms.No.36 dated 18.05.1997.
Therefore, there are no merits. Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
05. This Court, having considered the rival submissions
made by the parties, is of the considered view that the learned
Single Judge has only directed the case of the respondent be
re-considered in terms of B.P(P&G.PER).Ms.No.36 dated
18.05.1997. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with
the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the Writ Appeal
is liable to be dismissed.
06. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
__________________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
_________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
Date: 22.02.2022
KL
