Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/8516/2026 of BAYANABOYANA JANARDHANA Vs THE STATE OF AP on 6 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 8516/2026 Between: 1. BAYANABOYANA JANARDHANA, S/O RAMA CHANDRAIAH, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC SHIFT
APHC010169512026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 8516/2026
Between:
1. BAYANABOYANA JANARDHANA, S/O RAMA CHANDRAIAH, AGED 50
YEARS, OCC SHIFT OPERATOR(CL), KUPPAMRAJUPALLI SUB- STATION,
I.D.
NO.
PCL06608,
(SI
NO
R/O
NAGULAGUTTAPALLI,SURABHI
VILLAGE,
CHAKRAYAPETA
MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516259.
2. CHADIVE MADHAVA REDDY,, S/O BHASKAR REDDY,AGED 38
YEARS, OCC SHIFT OPERATOR(CL),KUPPAMRAJUPALLI SUB- STATION, I.D. NO. PCL06610, (SI NO 35), R/O THOTTIKADAPALLI
VILLAGE, CHAKRAYAPETA MANDAL,YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, A.P-
516259.
3. TALLAPALLI GANGADHARAO,, S/O RAMANNA, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC SHIFT OPERATOR(CL), E. KOTHA PALLI SUB- STATION, I.D.
NO. PCL06430, (SI NO 30) R/O E. KOTHA PALLI VILLAGE, CHANDRAGIRI POST, PULIVENDULA MANDAL, YSR KADAPA
DISTRICT-516390.
4. YERRAGUDI PALEM CHANDRAYUDU,, S/O KESAVULU, AGED 45
YEARS, OCC SHIFT OPERATOR(CL), DEGREE COLLEGE SUB- STATION, I.D. NO. PCL06419, (SI NO 28) R/O D.NO. 8/96-A, NALLAPUREDDYPALLI, EARRABALLI VILLAGE, PULIVENDULA
5. DASARI BALARAJU,, S/O PULLAIAH, AGED 42 YEARS, OCC SHIFT
OPERATOR(CL),SANTHAKOWURU
SUB-
STATION,
I.D.
NO.
PCL06538, (SI NO 38) R/O D.NO. 1-88, SANTH KOWURU
VILLAGE,THANDUR MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516421.
6. KOTHAPU JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, S/O VIJAY SUDHAKAR REDDY, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC SHIFT OPERATOR(CL), CHAKRYAPETA SUB- STATION, I.D. NO. PCL06603, (SI NO 26) R/O D.NO. 4/861-C-3,
MAHATMA NAGAR, YERRAGUNTIA MANDAL, YSR KADAPA
DISTRICT-516309.
7. YELAMAKURU RAMA CHANDRUD,, S/O OBULESU, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC SHIFT OPERATOR (CL), PERNAPADU SUB- STATION, I.D. NO.
PCL06579,( SI NO 36) R/O D.NO. 3-27, PERNAPADU VILLAGE, VEMULA MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516349
8. ONTEDDU VENKATA SREEDHARA REDDY, S/O LAKSHMI REDDY, AGED
YEARS,
OCC
SHIFT
OPERATOR
(CL),
JANGAMREDDYPALLI SUB- STATION, I.D. NO. PCL06503, (SI NO 32)
R/O
DEVATHAPURAM
VILLAGE,
JANGAMREDDYPALLI
POST,
SIMHADRIPURAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516464.
9. CHAPPIDI CHANDRA MOULI REDDY,, S/O CHENNA REDDY, AGED
50 YEARS, OCC SHIFT OPERATOR (CL), JANGAMREDDYPALLI
SUB-
STATION,
I.D.
NO.
PCL06504,
(SI
NO
R/O
JANGAMREDDYPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, SIMHADRIPURAM
MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516464.
10. P.SUDARSHAN REDDY,, S/O NARASIMHA REDDY, AGED 39 YEARS, OCC SHIFT OPERATOR (CL), RAMIREDDYPALLI SUB- STATION, I.D.
NO. PCL06554, (SI NO 37) R/O RAMIREDDYPALLI VILLAGE AND
POST, VEMPALLI MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516321.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENERGY
DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS,
VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238.
2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY LIMITED, APSPDCL REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND
MD/CMD, 19-13, 65/A SRINIVASAPURAM, TIRUCHANOOR ROAD, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT-517501.
3. THE
CHIEF
GENERAL
MANAGER/HRD,
SOUTHERN
POWER
DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LIMITED, VIDYUTH NILAYAM, TIRUCHANOOR ROAD, KESAVAYANI GUNTA, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATHI
DISTRICT-517501.
4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, APSPDCL, KADAPA BESIDES
GOVT. POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, M ROAD, KADAPA - 516008
5. THE
EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER
OPERATIONS,
PULIVENDULA
DIVISION, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, NEAR 33/11 K.V SS COMPOUND, 0PP. MUNICIPAL OFFICE,AMANGENPALLI ROAD,PULIVENDULA
MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516390.
6. M/S SANDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, J.
VEERA
REDDY,
R/O.
D.NO.
26/932-1,
GURAVAIAHTHOTA,
PRODDUTURU MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516360.
7. M/S RAJIVNAGAR COLONY HARIZANALABBURCONTARCT COOP
SOCIETY LTD, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, CH. YESUPADAM, R/O.
D.NO. 3/89RAJIV NAGAR COLONY, MIDUTHUR VILLAGE, KHAJIPET
(M.D), YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516203.
8. M/S
SRI
SAI
SUBRAMANAYAM
ELECTRICALS
AND
CONSTRUCTIONS, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, K. DIVYA SWAROOP, R/O. D.NO. 42/397-6, RADHA NILAYAM,BHAGYA NAGAR COLONY, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516002.
9. N SREENIVASULA REDDY, S/O RAMI REDDY, AGE MAJOR, OCC
CONTRACTOR, R/O. KOTHUR VILLAGE, PENDLIMARRY MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, A.P- 516216.
10. M/S
BWK
SERVICES
CONTRACT
PVT
LTD,
REP.
BY
ITS
PROPRIETOR, B. GANDA RAJU, R/O. FLAT NO. 102, VISWA SURYA
APARTMENT, POTTIPADU ROAD, PRODDUTUR (M.D), YSR KADAPA
DISTRICT-516360.
11. P NARASA REDDY, S/O P.KONDA REDDY, AGE MAJOR, OCC
CONTRACTOR, R/O. D.NO. 7-1-581/1 BADVEL, BADVELMANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, A.P-516227.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action the action of the 3rd respondents in proposing termination of Petitioners services vide Memo No.CGM(HRD)/GM(HR-II)/DCG(PEN and OS)/ G D.No. 139/26 dated 17.03.2026 alleging that petitioners 1 to 10 did not possess m qualification at the time of appointment and subsequently acquired the same whereas in respect of petitioner 11 alleging that he produced other than ITI Electrician Trade Certificate and accordingly directing the respondent to intimate the 6th to 11th respondents to issue to issue notice of termination to all the petitioners as illegal,
arbitrary, unfair, violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and further direct the respondents to not to terminate the petitioners from his services and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings, including termination of the petitioners' services, in pursuant to the impugned Vide Memo No.
CGM(HRD)/GM(HR-II)/DCG(PEN and OS)/ D.No. 139/26 dated 17-03-2026, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. CHALLAGALI GOPALARAJU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL
2. GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
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.
ORDER:
The petitioners are working under the respondents 6 to 11 Contractors as Shift Operators and their contract has been extended from time to time. Now the services of the petitioners have been directed to be terminated without providing any opportunity not even following the principles of natural justice. Hence, the present writ petition.
2. The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have taken preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition basing on the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in T. Subba Reddy and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.467 of 2023, vide its judgment dated 14.07.2023, the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court has held as under: “9. Undisputedly there is no privity of contract between the official respondents and the appellant. The recruitment was done by the respondent No.3 the contractor. The petitioner was not engaged by the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
10. With respect to the payment by the respondent No.2 out of escrow account, in a similar matter, in W.P.Nos.12035, 12154 and 11898 of 2021, this aspect was elaborately dealt in judgment dated 05.08.2021. It is apt to reproduce the relevant part, as under:- “Therefore, a reading of these clauses cumulatively leads to a conclusion that in order to ensure that the amounts/salaries due to the workers are paid to them this escrow account has been opened. The account was not opened for any other reason Normally, if a contractor is appointed he will raise a bill and collect the amounts, but as the payment of salaries to outsourced employees has become a matter of serious concern it was decided in the meeting held on 13.07.2018 to open these escrow accounts. The contractors stated that they have no objection if the operators are paid salaries directly through an escrow bank account.
As far as the other issues are concerned it is clear that the recruitment is done by the contractor. The attendance sheet is prepared by the contractor. It is sent to the vendor to raise a bill. Clause 2.3 and in 2.11 of Working Methodology clearly state as follows: “2.3. Attendance Sheet shall be prepared each month separately for each sub-station. The attendance sheet shall be marked „P‟ for present and „A‟ for absence (pro-forma enclosed) and signed by the AE/or ADE of respective sub-stations and submit the same to the respective DE/Operation by 25th of every month, to admit the vendor bill for payment; a copy of attendance sheet shall be mailed to the vendor to raise the bill accordingly.
2.11 The salaries shall be paid to the outsourced employees on 1st of every month through contractors‟ escrow account by Pay office seeking LOC against the liability documents.”
Therefore, it is clear that the opening of the escrow account is for a specific purpose and it does not establish and employer-employee relationship between the petitioner/ workmen and the official respondent. There is no privity of contract between the petitioners and the official respondents.”
3. The Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court has also held in the similar circumstances in W.A.No.310 of 2024 dated 30.08.2024 (The Chairman and Managing Director and others vs. P. Nagendra and others), wherein the identical issue with regard to Shift Operators has been considered and finally disposed of the matter with the following observations: “50. A reading of the judgment of the learned single Judge shows that, the writ petition was allowed observing that though the petitioners were engaged on contract basis, their services were required continuously for the organization. The duties and responsibilities entrusted to petitioners were of perennial nature. It could not be stated that the services of the petitioners were no longer required and as such there was no requirement of continuing the petitioners either on contract, casual, or daily basis. The writ petitioners claim was opposed by the company on the ground that they were engaged through contractor which aspect was extensively considered in W.A.No. 1478 of 1999 in which, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suresh (supra), it was observed that the statutory body should not be permitted to violate the statute with impunity and the same would amount to unfair labour practice. Thus, the emphasis laid was on the judgment in W.A.No.1478 of 1999 which had attained finality as also on the fact that the writ petitioners were working for last twenty years and there was no adverse remarks against them from which it was drawn that they had rendered satisfactory service.
51. A reading of the judgment of the learned single Judge, however, does not show, any finding recorded on the aspect of the relationship of the employer and employee between the writ appellant and the writ petitioners.”
4. It has also been observed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in para No.59 (ii)(iii) and (vii) of its judgment as follows:
(ii) In the absence of any finding on the aspect of the relationship of the employer and employee between the writ appellants and the writ petitioners, the direction for regularization is unsustainable.
(iii) The question whether there is relationship of employer and employee between the writ appellants and the writ petitioners is a question of fact. To record the finding, the material would be required. The evidence would be required. It will also have to be seen whether the writ appellant is a licenced principal employer and the contractor, as named in the writ petitions, was a licenced contractor. It will also have to be seen whether there was any genuine contract system prevailing at the relevant point of time or not, and whether the contract labourers became employees of the principal employer in course of time and whether the engagement and employment through contractor was a mere camouflage. All this is required to be established on the basis of requisite material, may be after lifting of veil or piercing the veil.
(vii) The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the appropriate remedy to be approached directly in such matters seeking regularization, and particularly, when the Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal have got the jurisdiction to consider such aspect and on the determination of the relevant factual aspects based on material they have jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders for regularization.
5. On perusal of the above observations of the Division Benches of this Hon’ble Court, it is very clear that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable before this Court and this is not an appropriate remedy to be approached directly in such matters seeking regularization, and particularly, when the Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal have got the jurisdiction to consider such aspect and on the determination of the relevant factual aspects based on material they have jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders for regularization.
6. Following the above said observations, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent Labour Court for their grievance. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH
Date:07.04.2026 GK
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO:8516 of 2026
Dated:07.04.2026
GK