WP/2254/2000 of M.Manoranjan Babu, Vs The A.P., Transco Corporation Limited, on 31 December 2008

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to directrespondent No.1 to absorb the petitioners as Revenue Cashiers inpursuance of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.05.1997 read with B.P.Ms.No.271,dated 31.12.1997 issued by respondent No.1 Corporation.

The petitioners in their affidavit averred that they were appointedas Volunteers (attending to the duties of Revenue Cashiers) byrespondent No.2 for collecting the electricity charges on behalf ofrespondent No.1; that an agreement was entered into betweenrespondent Nos.1 and 2 on 03.06.1988 in pursuance of whichrespondent No.2 has been collecting consumption charges from theconsumers of respondent No.1 and that in pursuance of the saidagreement, respondent No.2 was to employ certain Volunteers andaccordingly, the petitioners were appointed by respondent No.2 videletters, dated 07.07.1993, 01.01.1996, 24.09.1994, 11.08.1993 and08.07.1993 respectively. The petitioners further averred that though theywere named as Volunteers, they were discharging the duties ofcollection of consumer current charges thereby discharging the duties ofRevenue Cashiers. The petitioners have therefore, sought for a directionto respondent No.1 to regularize their services in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36,dated 18.05.1997 read with B.P.Ms.No.271, dated 31.12.1997.

In the counter-affidavit filed by the Superintending Engineer,Operation Circle, Guntur of respondent No.1 Corporation, it is inter alia averred that all the Revenue Cashiers functioning underrespondent No.1 Corporation are it’s regular employees but thepetitioners were employed by a voluntary organization and there is no privity of contract between respondent No.1 and the petitioners. It isfurther averred that neither the erstwhile APSEB nor respondentNo.1/APSPDCL had any direct control over the petitioners, who areworking as volunteers engaged by respondent No.2. It is also averredthat the petitioners do not come within the definition of contract labour astheir services were not only meant for the works of APSPDCL(successor of APSEB for distribution of electricity in Southern Region)but also for several other works to be accepted by the private accountingagencies and, therefore, BP.Ms.Nos.36 and 271 have no application tothe cases of the petitioners.

At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioners.

From the very pleadings of the petitioners, it is quite evident thatthey were engaged as Volunteers by respondent No.2 organisation. Thus, I find force in the stand taken by respondent No.1 that there is noprivity of contract between the petitioners and respondent No.1 orAPSPDCL. The two Board Proceedings on the strength of which thepetitioners have been claiming absorption were issued in order toabsorb/appoint different categories of workers, such as, Ex-CasualLabour, Village Electricity Workers and Contract Labour and therefore,they do not ex facie apply to the petitioners as they failed to show thatthey fall within any of the above mentioned three categories whoseabsorption is envisaged against 50% vacancies earmarked byrespondent No.1.

For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the writpetition and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.2851 of 2000filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

31[st] DECEMBER, 2008.

kvni

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J