WP/160/2025 of BILLI TIRUPATAIAH Vs THE STATE OF AP on 10 February 2026

ORDER:

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: <….to issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction, or directions, declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not allowing the petitioner to discharge his duties as Shift Operator at 33/11KV Martur North Sub-Station Prakasam District, without any further orders is contrary to the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent vide its Lr.No.SE/O/OGL/PO(Adm)/JAO- l/SA-l/F.No:4/eNo319200 Dated 08/10/2024 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India besides being in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner into service as Shift Operator, at 33/11KV Martur North Sub-Station Prakasam District with all consequential benefits…=

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for APCPDCL appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an outsourcing employee engaged as a Shift Operator at 33/11 KV Martur North Sub-Station, Prakasam District, under the control of respondent No.6, the contractor. While so, the respondent authorities are not allowing the petitioner to discharge his duties as Shift Operator without issuing any further orders or any show-cause notice. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

4. During hearing, learned Standing Counsel for APCPDCL appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5 submitted that there is no relationship of employer and employee between respondent Nos.2 to 5 and the petitioner. Since the petitioner was engaged by the contractor, respondent No.6, the writ petition is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.467 of 2023, wherein it has categorically held in paragraph Nos.9 and 10 as follows: <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.4 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.=

5. Considering the above submissions and on perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Date: 11.02.2026 Ivd

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

WRIT PETITION No.160 of 2025

Dated: 11.02.2026

Ivd