BHAJANA KRISHNAM v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

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 to direct the Respondent No.3 to re-engage the petitioner as Shift Operator in the Respondents' department pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. N B CHANDRA SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL)

2. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI O R D E R: P a g e | 3 The Writ Petition is filed for the following relief: “…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to set aside the proceedings No.Lr.No.EE/O/NRPM/ JAO/ADM/Court Cases/D.No.175/2023 Dt.13- 02-2023 passed by the Respondent No.3 against the petitioner as the same is illegal and in violation of Art. 19 and 21 of Constitution of India, 1950 and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to re- engage the petitioner as Shift Operator the Respondents' department…”

2. Heard Sri N.B. Chandrasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Varum Shyam Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Government Pleader for Services-I and Sri Y.Nagendra, learned counsel representing Sri V.V. Satish, learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL appearing for the respondents 2 to 4.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner appointed as a contract employee by the APEPDCL through the Kranthi Construction Contractor on

20.04.2018 as Shift Operator, in 33/11 KV Sub-Station, M.Kodur, V. Madugula Mandal, Anakapalli District, while he was in service, Sri Pothina Laxmi Rao, shift operator died due to electric shock on 28.11.2020 at 11.45 am, against which an enquiry was ordered and the report was submitted on 04.03.2022. Wherein a disciplinary enquiry against certain persons initiated for exhibiting negligence in discharging their duties which resulted in fatal accident and also P a g e | 4 recommended for removal of the petitioner from service and accordingly, the petitioner services were terminated, against which he made a representation to the 3rd respondent authority and approached this Court against non- consideration of the said representation in W.P.No.344 of 2023. This Court by an order, dated 05.01.2023, directed the respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation. Pursuant to the said directions, the 3rd respondent passed the impugned speaking order. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. Sri Y. Nagendra, learned counsel representing Sri V.V. Satish, learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL, appearing for the respondents, had taken a preliminary objection that the Writ Petition is not maintainable, as there is no employee and employer relationship as the petitioner was engaged by the contractor and also in view of the negligence that took place, the services were dispensed with by the department and as such, the Writ Petition is not maintainable and placed reliance on the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.467 of 2023 .

5. Sri N.B. Chandresekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner admittedly is an outsourcing employee working under a contractor. However, the respondents have passed an impugned order pursuant to the directions of this Court, as such they cannot deny the employee and employer relationship. P a g e | 5

6. Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged as an outsourced employee and was working under M/s. Kranthi Construction Contractor. In view of the enquiry conducted into the negligence attributed to the petitioner, which resulted in a fatal accident, his services were dispensed with by the respondent. In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot now agitate basing on the order passed by the respondent No.3, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.344 of 2023, whereby the respondent No.3 was directed to consider the petitioner’s representation and pass appropriate orders thereon. The said order, having been passed in compliance with the aforesaid direction, does not create or confer any right upon the petitioner to seek continuation or reinstatement in service, nor does it alter the nature of his engagement as an outsourced employee. Accordingly, the petitioner’s claim based on the said order is untenable.

7. As admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.467 of 2023, considered the similar issue and held that if out sourced employee whose recruitment was done by a contractor and attendant sheet was prepared by the contractor and mere payment made by the vendor will not create any right or the opening of escrow account for the said specific purpose will not establish the employee and employer relationship between petitioner and the official respondents as there is no privity of contract between the petitioners and the official respondent. P a g e | 6

8. The following observations judgment dated 14.7.2023, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.467 of 2023, are extracted hereunder: 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.”

9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, it is clear that the petitioner was engaged by the contractor and worked as an outsourced employee. There is no direct contractual relationship or privity of contract between the P a g e | 7 petitioner and the official respondents. Therefore, no employer–employee relationship exists between the petitioner and the official respondents, and the petitioner cannot claim any employment-related right against the official respondents. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is not maintainable and is dismissed. No order as to costs. Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Dated: 06.08.2026 BSM / SAK P a g e | 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Writ Petition No. 18961 of 2023 Date: 06.08.2026 BSM