Supdt. Engineer, Apcpdcl, Secbad ... vs S.A.Raheem, Hyd.
2022 Latest Caselaw 871 Tel

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                 AND
    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI



             WRIT APPEAL No.859 of 2009

JUDGMENT:   (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


    The present writ appeal is arising out of an order

dated 03.02.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge

in W.P.No.17050 of 2007.

    It has been brought to the notice of this Court

that in an identical matter i.e., W.A.No.732 of 2009

this Court has passed the following judgment on

22.02.2022:-

          "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."

In the light of the aforesaid, the present writ

appeal also stands dismissed. The judgment delivered

in W.A.No.732 of 2009 shall be applicable mutatis

mutandis in the present case also.

Let a copy of the judgment passed by this Court

in W.A.No.732 of 2009, dated 22.02.2022, be kept on

record in the present case.

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

______________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

______________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J

23.02.2022 vs