Telangana High Court
WP/16125/1998 of Uggam Venkateswara Rao, Vs A.P. State Electricity Board, on 26 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA W P Nos. 16125, 16936, 17032, 24560 of 1998, 2187, 6823 of 1999, 26001 of 2001, 2320, 3260, 4489 of 2002, and 24343 of 2003 Date:26.12.2006 Writ Petition No. 16125 of 1998 Between: Uggam Venkateswara Rao …..PETITIONER AND A.P.State Electricity Board,
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
Date:26.12.2006
Writ Petition No. 16125 of 1998
Between:
Uggam Venkateswara Rao …..PETITIONER
AND
A.P.State Electricity Board,Through its Member Secretary, Vidyut Soudha,Somajiguda, Hyderabad & ors
….RESPONDENTS
Common Order:
Questioning the action of the respondents in not considering thecases of the petitioners for appointment in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36dated 18.5.1997 the present writ petitions are filed.
2. Since the issue raised in all the writ petitions is similar, they arebeing disposed of by this common order.
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, it is submitted bythe learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and admitted to bythe learned counsel for the petitioners that the subject matter of thiswrit petition is squarely covered by the orders of the apex Court in CivilAppeal No.3215 of 2002 and batch, dated 18.04.2002, wherein theapex Court considered similar issue and disposed of the Civil Appeals with the following observations.
“In our view, in the petitions before the High Court therewas no question of considering public policy and thediscussion on the law was totally besides the point involved inthe matter. Limited issue was – whether before regularizationof service of employees, the Board was bound to follow theeligibility conditions laid down in its proceedings dated18.05.1997 and 31.12.1997. Benefit of regularization whichwas conferred on the employees solely depended uponeligibility of conditions including the age limit prescribed under the statutory regulations. The statutory regulations providethat there shall be no relaxation of age. In cases, where theBoard has committed mistake in engaging under-age casualemployees or has permitted the contractor to do so would notconfer any right on such employees for being regularized onthe basis of BPMS dated 18.05.1997.
In this view of the matter, the judgment rendered by theHigh Court cannot be sustained and is, therefore, set aside.
However, considering the fact that therespondents/casual employees/employees of thecontractor/junior linemen are in service for more than 15years, we do not think that this would be a fit case fordisturbing their appointments made in pursuance of the orderpassed by the High Court.
Ordered accordingly. Appeals stand disposed of.”
4. In the circumstances, these writ petitions are also disposed of interms of the orders passed by the apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3215of 2002 and batch, dated 18.04.2002. No costs.
________________
N.V. RAMANA, J.
Date:26.12. 2006Tvk
Dated 26.12.2006