WP/27397/2005 of M.Trimurthulu Vs The Chairman AND Managing Director, AP Transmissin on 26 December 2005

O R D E R:

The petitioner challenges the communication, dated 25-10-2005, received byhim from the third respondent herein. The matter relates to the claim of thepetitioner for appointment in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18-05-1997.

The erstwhile A.P. Electricity Board formed a scheme for regularization of thecontractual labourers, who have been engaged in certain prohibited categories.The petitioner was also called for the interview. His case was rejected on theground that he did not establish his case that he worked as a contract labourerin the prohibited category at the relevant point of time. Thereupon, the petitionerfiled WP.No.5158 of 2003. The said writ petition was disposed of with adirection to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh.

The third respondent addressed a letter, dated 08-01-2005, to thepetitioner stating that the petitioner did not hold the qualification for the post ofLDC and that the certificate of engagement produced by him is not genuine.The petitioner filed WP.No.2421 of 2005 challenging the letter, dated 08-01-2005. Following the judgment rendered in WP.No.3053 of 2005, dated 13-06-2005, this Court had set aside the letter, dated 08-01-2005, and directed thethird respondent to consider the matter afresh. Through the impugned order, thethird respondent informed the petitioner that his case cannot be considered inview of the fact that the service certificate relied upon by him does not bear thedate on which either the Contractor or Departmental Official had signed it.Several other reasons have also been stated.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very fact that the name ofthe petitioner was included in the list of casual labourers and that he wasinvited to the interview discloses that his claim was genuine and that it was notopen to the respondents to deny the benefit to the petitioner under B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18-05-1997.

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits thatwhen the very basis of claim of the petitioner is shaky, the question ofextending the benefit, to the petitioner does not arise.

The scheme framed under B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18-05-1997, conferredextraordinary benefits to the persons who have been engaged as contractlabourers in the prohibited categories at a particular point of time. It is onlywhen it is established that an individual has been so engaged, the benefit canbe extended. The petitioner was required to satisfy the respondents that he hasbeen engaged by a labour contractor, who in turn, was awarded a contract inrelation to a prohibited category of work. The certificate issued by theContractor was required to be counter-signed by the officials, duly verifying thenature of contract, its duration, the requirement of manpower and the actualengagement of the workers. For this purpose, he was required to examine themuster roll and other relevant records.

In the instant case, the petitioner relied upon a certificate said to have beenissued by Mr. N.V.L.Narasimha Rao. It does not contain any date either in thetop or bottom, or under the signatures of the persons, who are said to havesigned it. The contents are also as vague as they could be. On the one hand, itis said that the petitioner had worked during the period from 01-04-1992 to 31-03-1999 and on the other hand, the agreements referred to in it are, thoserelating to the year 1997-99. In these circumstances, the petitioner cannot besaid to have established his case for consideration. No exception can be takento the impugned order.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

26[th] DECEMBER, 2005.

Conclusion

_________________________

(L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J)

kvni