The High Court · 2025

Order

Heard Sri Allabakash, learned counsel appearang on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Energy appearing on behalf of the respondent No,1 and Ms. K.Udaya Sri, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.Z to 5. 2. Th e petiti nera DDroa as under: DTaver d the c u s

"...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declaring the impugned action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner the regular service and notional seniority w.e.f 1.5.1993 and pecuniary benefit w.e.f. 1.5.1993 while extending such beneFits to all other contract labour absorbed under the scheme of absorption vide B.p.Ms. No.36, dated IB/OS/1gg7 and B.p.Ms.N o.27t and 272 dated 3I/12/t997 and B.p.Ms. No. 326 dt 14.3.1998 and thereby denying the petitioner the equar treatment and further action of the respondents in giving consolidate pay to the petitioner while fixing highe to all other contract labour absorbed under the scheme is highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of 14, 16 and 2I of the Constitution of India and r scale Article z SN, J consequently direct the respondents to allow the service benefit w.e.f 1'5'i993 and pecuniary benefit from 1.5.1993 as per B'P' Ms' 326' dt l4l3lg} as allowed to the other similarly Situated persons vide Memo No' CEElo& MIDR NTTPS /Adm /C'3 lF' BID' N0' 2813/11' dl 14/t:zl2ll1 as per the orders of this Honorable Court in writ Petition No' 2t7g/2}06' Dt :l9/ilLl2}70 and pass..." h a e inb ae s D filed v ave rments m ad of the ore the petitioner ln in the ffidavi t n r t ntwrit Petitaon ls as under The petitioner was engaged as a contract labourer (skilled worker) in the telecom dePartment of TSTRANSCO (formerlY APSEB), in the year 1993' The Government of Andhra Pradesh' through G.O.Ms.No'41 dated 23'09'1996' prohibited engagement of contract labour in various locations of work' Pursuant to this' TSTRANSCO issued B'P'Ms'No'36 dated 1B'05'1997 and B.P.Ms.No.326 dated 14'03'1998 to absorb contract labour working in abolished categories' granting them service benefits w.e.f. 06.12.1996 and pecuniary benefits w'e'f' 09'12'1997' Despite being similarly placed' the petitioner was not consideredforabsorptionundertheschemebytherespondents. J SN, J The petitioner aggrieved by the same filed W.p. No. 4209/L999, in the erstwhile High Court, and the court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner.s case for regularization. The respondents called the petitioner for -an interview on 28.10.1997 and the petitioner appeared for the interview; however, no further action was taken. The petitioner was eventually absorbed on 29.O7.ZOL7 as Artisan Grade_II, on an "as- is-where- is', basis with no service benefits or pecuniary benefits. It is further the case of the petitioner that other similarly situated persons in W.p. No. 2179/2006 and W.p. No. 17643/2012, were granted benefits under the scheme, including regularization, pay scales, seniority, and promotions but the petitioner was denied of similar treatment which has resulted in Ioss of pecuniary and service benefits. Despite the petitioner,s representation dated 03/2020, no action had been taken as on date. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner approached the court and filed the present writ petition. 4 E D R c a 1 i i I t I i I 4 SN, J A 29 T e ro e in o c 20 7i u h 2dr o de 5 d r t n extracted hereunder:- ^of 'tt*titize Whereas, the issue of absorption. of "Outsourced TSTRANSCO in Personnel" *u. piutlJ belore the B99r! its 19th aoatO Me"eii;g ntrO on 30-05-2017' The Board of TSTRANSCO, alter peiusal of the proposal of absorption of outsourced p"rso'i*i- *orking in TSTTRANSCO' has resolved to ,egurJii'e the outs5urced Personnel' and that a committee o" .onrtiirt"d to verify and scrutinize all the applications recei;;;;;; submit the details to the Board in ineir next meeting for further action' 2. Whereas, in the reference 1st read above' a Committee the "Bio-Data' particulars of was constitut"O i" "Outsourced petsJnnef-as per the guidelines appended to said order uno'-i'ornii- ils report to the Board' The committee un"t. ,.iitinv of the "Bio-Data particulars_of the "Outsourced p"tto"nef iubmitted its report on t2-07-20t7 under reference 2nd read above' 3. Whereas; the Committee after. detailed ,irrtinvlu"tincation of the bio-data particulars of the personnel working in TSTRANSCO'.which was 'i" outsourced- Personnel Information "rtt"rii"O ,pioiJ"J- iLi".toprs) by the concerned Unit officers' and as per iti;*;;);;li;6.'ir.r"o- nus identified the outsourced p.ito"nn"t for absorption, as detailed below: Sl.No. Name of ZonelHOD Highly skilled Skilled Semi- skilled Unskilled Total 1 2 3 Vidyut Soudha Hyderabad- Metro Hyderabad- Rural 25 151 L07 116 181 280 103 183 399 747 374 5s6 258 181 1369 5 4 Wa ra nga I Zone Total 480 713 271 218 1060 170O 739 698 SN, J 1682 4797

4. Whereas, the ReDort of the Committee was placed before the Board of 'tnu- rsrnnNsl-O"in'"n-r-20,. Meeting held on 2B-07-2Ot7..for taking-i Ou.r1.ion on the recommendations of the Commiit"u foi-ltrorption of 4,797 "outsourced "x??'r",,ff 3l IX: cont.acto.sTffi.,irrr,rXrTt"tl"1" continuous/perennial nature of *o.k;';;;;' necessitates B(eight) hours whole -^time work in u O"u V in various lo^cations/offices oF TSTRANSCo-and"woitillru, on 4_72_ 2016, by re-desionaring-JF;-.; ;r,lr..' or..t"_r/Arrisan G rade-II/Artisa n 6rade_it rTArtisan ci"a":iv]' "' 5. Whereas, in the reference 3d read above, the Board in its 20 Board Meeting, resorved tnat-'tie- concerned appointing authorities be authorised to iirr"'i"n" orders for absorption of 4,L97 ',outsourced pui".r,"l,i'.s per the C_omunittee,s Report oatea-rz_ozlzb#,'=rrb".t to the approval by the comDetent authority in inl"6ouu.nrunt. ll::Illqlrt the proposat ro. uoro'.piion'"or"ortror.."o personnel as mentioned above *", - *t.ittect to the Govern ment in the reFeren.e +li ieaolo*l]',ro.j'upp.oru r. h e or n T d er& lanqana t o el" I u n! n u m d 1 n 5e n w s 7 fL r for absor Dtion of 4,L9 s IT r where-is basis. ra ef Gr I v n n ofT h a r r a \ v e er din 3 1 o e m OUtso a r f d a d e I I 6 a or TSTRA sco on s-as- where- is basis. 19 SN, J n above, the onnel working

8. Whereas, ln guidelines for abs in TSTRANSCO AS the reference 7th read orption of outsourced Pers on 4-12-2016 were issued' 9. Accordingly, after careful consideration' the Chief ;;s;;;ryz;"es ana Joint secretarv' TSTRANSCO are ;;;";;-;;th"rised to issue orders of absorption to the ;;;;.."d personnel, whose names are mentioned in the inn-"rrr", appended to this order, subject to adherence to ii.," gi,io;l iines specified in Para-10(iv)' (v)' (vii)' (ix) & (vv) at the time of issue of orders of absorption' They shall rorro* the other suide lines as mentioned :il ;;;;;utrv in para-rb under reference 7th read above' 10. Consequent to above, the concerned , appointing urinoiiii"t J.e directed not to engage any new "outsourced ;;;;;;;"1; in place of the absorbed personnel and shall not [.4"J"r" any works involving deployment-of "outsourced p"r*ri;i *itnbut obtaining prior approval of the corporate Office. Further, the strengih of the "outsourced personnel" ituno. riu"r"a, ano herice, no new persons are to be engageO for whatsoever reasons' In case there is any lapse in'tr'ri.-r"tp"ct, such amount(s) will be-.debited to the -i-.io,int of the concerned officer(s)' besides plrrorur inltiuting disciplinary action as deemed fit' Further' they tnfoimed inat tn" "outsourced personnel" now ;;;';H oling ibtoio"d shall be absorbed on "as-is-where-is-basis" "no request for change of place of work will be unO and they shall be required to discharge any duty entrusted to them by the Corporation' In case any "nt".tuin"O cnange in the place of posting is contemplated, prior apprdvat of the Corporate Office should be obtained' duly furnishing justification for such change'

11. The specimen copy of absorption order, to be issued by the concerned appointing authority is enclosed herewith along with specimen copy of attestation forms and medical fitness certificate. 1 t,l 7 SN. J

12. They are directed to take action accordingly and report compliance forthwith. 1_3. These orders are issued with the concurrence of IMD (Fin., Commr & HRD) vide Resd.No.iii-, ii.'iilot_20L7 B P r N s t h t r hereunder:- e o a d o e a n d

7. In reply to averments m ade in para Nos. 2 & 3 it is submitted that the Writ petitioner's cl aim for absorption in terms of B.p. Ms.No.36. dated 1B-05-1997 or under B.P.Ms.No.37 dated 18-05- 1997 was not considered and he continued to be a contract Iabour till he was issued with absorption orders in terms of the scheme formulated b the Telang ana State po wer Utilities. v 7 R R I I T -l I I I 1, I i I I 8 b may, the said representation has no merits u SN, J . Be that as it In reply to averments made in Para No.4, it is 8. submitted that it is misconcei ved to contend that all the absorbed in terms of contract labour have been B.P. Ms. No. 326. B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18-05-1997 R/w' of the contract dated 14-03-1998. The absorption labour/casual labour/Village Electricity Workers is onlY 50o/o of the vacancies existing as on 1 8-5-1997 and the Writ Peti tioner was not falling within the said vacancies. Therefore, he was not considered and as Per his own averments, he was continued as contract workmen' The f L .t -7- 1 1 id the consolidated PaY tled to seek anY regular The Writ Petitioner is not enti benefits on Par with other employ ees w.e.f. 1-5-1993. The Writ Petitioner was Pa the pendency of the W.P. Rs.19,000/- per month during (PIL) No. 149 of 2017 and after the disposal of the W.P. (PIL) No. 149 of 2017, the Writ Petitioner was extended the scale of Pa y attached to the Post of Artisan Grade-II on par with similarly situated Artisans who were absorbed w.e.f .29-7-20L7.

9. In reply to averments made in Para No'5' it is iubmitted tnat w.p.lto .2179 of 2006 is not applicable to the Petitioner as he is not a party to the said Writ Petition' The facts in the said Writ Petition clearly demonstrate that the relief was extended to contract labour who were absorbed in terms of B.P.Ms.No.37, dated 1B-05- 1997 a7w. c.o.r"rr.No.41. dated 23-9-1996. Since the writ Petitioner is not contract labour working in the prohibited .ut"go.i"t as notified in G.O. Ms. No' 41' dated 23-9-t996' inO 6t he was not absorbed in terms of said B'P'Ms'37: he is not entitled to any relief on par with the Petitioners in W.P. No.2179 of 2006. a1 9 SN, J 2 o a n a

10. It is submitted that the averments made i n Para No. 6 are equally devoid of merits. W.p. No.17643 of 2012 is filed by the contract workmen who were absorbed in terms of B.P. Ms. No. 37 dated 18-05-1997 and B.p. Ms. No. 272 dated 31-12-t997 and in the posts sanctioned in terms of B.p.Ms.No.326 dated 14-03-1998 srnce the P t on r OU w ki e d o. or b 6 h ts o n s. o.4 e h o w s 9- 7 o t r h 11. It is submitted that there are no merits in the Writ Petition and the writ petition is tiabte t;be;i;;issed. 37 d ed 18- 5- 99 e n h w !V a sor th s s e w. t o17 n n er o I H ts er d rl a r av t 2 1 .P M n 7 e n f a r 2 s n U L I A D o I I 5, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contends that the servaces of the petitioner should be regularized and notional seniority accorded to the petitioner w.e.f.O1.05.1993 and pecuniary benefits w.e.f. O1.OS.1993 as per BpMS No.36, dated 18.05.1997, since the petitioner had been working in respondent organization w.e.f. O1.O5.1993 as outsource employee and had been absorbed as Artasan Grade_ff in TSTRANSCO w.e.f. 29.O7.2OL7. 10 o SN, J

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the petitioner superannuated on O1.07.2020 and prior to the superannuation of the petitioner, petitioner vide representation addressed to the Chairman & Managing Director, TSTRANSCO, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad requested to consider the previous service of the petitioner for the purpose of pension and other benefits as per B.P.Ms.No'36, dated 18'05'1997' but however no action had been initiated on the said representation as on date and aggrieved by the same' the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 7, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner places reliance on the iudgment dated 19'11'2010 passed in w.P.No.2L7g of 2OO6 and also the iudgment of this court, dated 24.LL.2024 passed in w.P.No.7343 of 2O19 and contends that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ Petition. t" ( ,,. ) SN, J

8. Learned standing counset appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos,2 to 5 on the other hand placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in particular paia Nos,7, g and 10 (referred to and extracted above) contends that the petitioner is not entitted for absorption in terms of B.P.Ms.No.36, dated 18.OS.1997 or under B.p.Ms.No.37, dated 18.05.1992 c ti o er u da r n P a u s s oncontract basis h u h b r ta n la e b t T s n n s t h e w r n a ho futfitled oth erco nditions were e on s-,s-where-ts basis a s rbed on be m ane MDlo eeofT elanqa na state Power Utititres 9 7 o 7 nd t eDe titi d t In m t a h o t s k n rt r o1 n e ta on rc n t I er's e ti n r ti o s a I t2 SN, J Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the that the Petitioner the rePresentation 9 respondent Nos.2 to 5 submits superannuated on 30.06.2O2O and alleged to have been made in the monih of March' 2O2O' had not been acknowledged by the respondents and the petitioner having accepted the absorption as Artisan Grade-II, vide proceedings dated 29'07'2Ot7 as per the terms of the settlement cannot turn back and seek regutarization of services w.e'f' 1993 and the petitioner failed to challenge the said proceedings, dated 29'O7'2OL7 as on date and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition and the Writ Petition itself is misconceived'

10. dated 29. 07.20L in su oort o c 7 filed on behalf of the resoondent Nos.2 unter: affidavi t filed inthe ore nt f the Writ Petiti me orand Tra on clearlv at Dara No.6 indicate mof Settlem ent was ente red in t2 r with the In rI Diso utes Act Com issioner of Labo L947 before the Conciliation Officer & tof Telanqana for r, Governmen i bs r n f Gr I v na -ls- h a n e l3 I 1 r u e -l b ts nd SN, J n I f TN n a rob nt v r n f na or b th sar 4 97 ou o T N c -wh f n n n

11. This Court opines that the petitioner retared from the services on 30.06.2020 on attaining the age of superannuation and having failed to challenge the proceedings dated Zg.O7.201-7 issued by the Znd respondent til! as on date and the fact as borne on record that the petitioner had been regurarized w.e.J.29.o7.2oL7 and the petitioner having never at any point of tame earlier having sought regularization of services w.e.f. the date of petitioner,s initial appointment i.e., in the year 1993 the petitioner cannot seek the said retief by filing the present Writ petition in the year 2021.

12. This Court opines that the petitioner is not entifled for grant of relief as prayed for in the present writ petition i I l T i ; I t l4 ,R SN, J in the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above at paras 5 to 11 of the present iudgment'

13. Taki o into conslderati n:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case' b) The submissions made by the tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos'2 to 5' c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents (referred to and extracted above) d) The contents of the proceedings, dated 29'07'2Ot7 ot the 2nd respondent pertaining to the absorption of 4,L97 outsourced personnel engaged in corporate Office & Zones through certain Contractors/Agencies/Firms for execution of certain continuous/perennial nature of whole-time duration works in TSTRANSCO (referred to and extracted above) e) Para Nos.6 & 7 of the proceedings, dated 29.O7'2OL7 which clearly indicates the memorandum of settlement having been entered into with the Trade Unions under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, L947 before l . i I , I t I I ,l I I I I I l5 SN, J the Conciliation Offacer & Commissioner of Labour, Government of Telangana for absorption oJ 4,I,gz "outsourced personnel in TSTRANSCO on as_is_where_is basis and the Government of Telangana accorded approval for the same. This Court opines that the judgments relied upon by the learned counset appearing on beharf of the petitioner do not apply to the facts of the present case and hence, pleas put-forth by the petitioner on the basis of the saad judgments are untenable and hence rejected. The Writ petition ts dismissed, since the same ts devoid of merits. However, there shail be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. I I r I I SD/-M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI FFICER To, ,| 2 J One CC to SRl. G ALLABAKASH Advocate [OPUCI One CC to Ms K UDAYA SRI SC FOR TSTRANSCO [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR ENERGY,High Court for the State of Telangana 4 KKS B Two CD Copies o ,J a CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:0210712025 ORDER WP.No.4956 ot 2021 tr_)1 ,rl <:o () !I iIP 2 025 )k g, L:t)t ..1.. \i v :1..-,1, {.-.1" r:r DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 01