High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of Ihe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particutarly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner, JLIt/ (YCB) with effect from July, 2007 as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutiona I apart from being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to consider the Revision filed by the petitioner on 3-6-2016 before the respondent No.2 while regularizing the services of the petitioner as JLIVI (yCB) w.e.f. July, 2007. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D. L. PANDU Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 5: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDy (sc FoR TELANGANA TRANSCO) The Court made the following: ORDER 1 wp 1,44OO -2071 NBK, J THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAICA. WRIT PETITION No.14400 of 2017 ORDER: The case of the petitioner, as per the rvrit alfidavit, is that he is working as Assistant Lineman in the Operation Circle, TSSPDCL, Bhoothpur, under the Mahabubnagar Circle, 'felangana. I{e completed X class and pursued vocational training at Bharat I.T.l. in electrical tracie during I996 - 1998, and worked as a Skilled Labour from January 2001 to 17.07.2007 in the Operation Section, Bhoothpur. He was appointed as Junior Lineman on Yearly Contract basis on 18.07.2007 and his services were regularized with effect from 18.07.2010 vide Memo dated

26.08.201 0, and later promoted as Assistant Lineman and posted to Pothalamadugu HQ, Bhoothpur Section, and he .loincd duty on 17.03.2015. The petitioner filed a mercy petition before the DISCOM Board of Directors,, TSSPDCL, [{yderabad, seeking regularization from

18.07.2007, citing that allegations leading to disciplinary action pertained to a period before his appointment as JL-M and that all vigiiance enquiries confir'm he was only a Skilled Labouler then, tct whom the provisions of the CCA Rules do not apply. He contends that the vigilance report dated

04.06.2007 lacks credibility as complainants withdren sltppolt lor their allegations, and critical witnesses iike AE,s and LIs u'ele neither exarnined nor their statements rccorded, despite thern being responsible for serv ice connections, unlike Skilled Labourers rvho holC no such authority. It is stated that his service fi'om 2001 to 2007 was ivithout tnisconduct, and from 2007 onwards he has rnaintaineci an unblemished recold. as reflected Z w9 _144OO _2017 NBK, ] ir; his perfirnnance repofts. He emphasizes that action taken based on iurr"erified anci ple-appointment allegations is u,ithout jr-u-isdiction. FJe llied a Revision Petition on 03.06.2016 before Respondent No.2, and the same has not been considered till date. Aggrieved by the non- regularization fiorrr July 2007, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to reqularize his services as J[.M (YCB) u'.e.f. July 2007. along with consideration of his Revision dated 03.06.20 t 6

2. I [car,-] NIr. D.L. Pandu. leamed counsel for the pctitioner; and Mr. N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel f,or the respondent-TG TR.\\SCO. Pcruseri the record.

3. Learneci coiinsel for the petitioner would essentiall-y contend that the petitiorrer. hai,ing been appointed as a Junior Linernan (yCB) cn 18.07 i()07 and subsequently reiJularized with effect from i 8.07.20 t 0, is enlitlcd to be reslrlarized from tire actual date of his inirial appointment. i.e.. i8.07 2007. particularly as tlre allegations leading to disciplinary procecdings rciate to a period when he was working only as a Skilled l-abourer, to qlrom the CCA Rules ale inappticable. It is contended that tlre visilance cnriirirw report Cated 04.A6.2007 does not establish any corftlpt practices :rrd in lact shows tliat complainants withdrew tlieir allesations, and r,o siatements rvere recorded from key strperwisorl ofl-rcer-s like AIrs and [-ls who a]one had the authoritl, to issue service conncctions. lt is aiso contended that the entire enquiry wns conducted in violation o1- principles of natural justice and rvithout jurisdiction. especially sinic the alleged rnisconduct pertained to a period pr.ior to the petitior:er"s appointn.icnt as .lLM; and the petilioner has served ivithor-rt wp_14400 2017 NBK, J blemish lrom 2001 to 201 5 and was promoted as Assistant Lineman based on rnerit and satisfactory service. It is contended that his representation and Revision dated 03.06.20 l6 seeking sympathetic and lrumanitarian consideration for regularization from l8'07.2007 remains pcnding, and ttrerefore the inaction of the respondent authorities in considering the claim of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal' 4. A counter affrdavit is filed by respondent t'Io'5 Divisional tingineer, Operation, TSSPDCL, .ladcherla, stating that the petitioner was initially engaged by a Labour contractor fbr operation and maintenance works in Operation Section, Bhoothpur, and was latcr appointed as contracr Junior Lineman (GJLM) following a Notification dated 08.06.2006 and a revised Notification dated 20'10'2006 issued by ApcPDCL (now TSSPDCL), which prioritized existing coutract I-abour. It is stated that selections, including a pole climbing test conducted in June 2007, were carried out in accordance with the selection criteria and rule of reservation, pursuant to which tl-re petitioner.ioined as GJI-M on 18.07.2007; and prior to his appointment, one A. Ravi Kumar subrnitted a representation dated 18.04.2007 levelling threc allegations against the pctitioner-first, of collecting large sums from SC Nos l174. I I 61, and I 173 (poultry faims) for sanctioning service connections and giving cable ,uvire; second, of arranging fresh connections irregularly in Amistapur village in place of stopped or old services; and third, of collecting exccss money ranging from Rs. 1200/- to Rs.1500/- instead of thc prescribed Rs.525l- from fresh cat-I consumers in Amistapur. Based on thcse allcgations, a vigilance enquiry was ordered and the Inspcctol of Police, APTS, Mahabubnagar, submitted a Report dated 04'06'2007, which 4 .- wp _14400 -2C!7 NB(, J concluded lhat the petitioner had indeed coilected excess alnounts froin consurnersi that although the petitioner was appointed as CJI-M b1'the tirne of thc enciuirl' report, disciplinary proceedings were rightly initiated a-rrainst hirn. and the contention that CCA Rules do not apply to contract labour is incorrec{; that a sho* cause notice proposine "Reinoval from sen ice" u'as issued vide Memo dated 09.08.2007. anct though the petitioner submitted an explanation, it was decided to monitor his conduct rather than telr-n inatc his services. Subsequently,, bascd on a colporate decisic'n io regulalizc (l.lLVIs on regular time scale w.e.f'. 03.I0.2008, the petitic;rer's casc \\ras revieweci, and his services were regularizcd only after c<rrnpleting thrce ycars {it>m 18.C7.2007" i.e., on t8.07.20 10, as a penalt-v-; that his iii;peal against this decision u'as rejected on 28.04.20 I l. anci the order has atr.ainecl finalitv. [t is contended that the petitioner''s claims regardirc. liick of authority to release serwice cottnections are baseless. as contr:rci iabotLrers were found to be collecting money from consulneis ibr such conuections, and action was taken in public interest i:ased on the cnqiiiry, findings, and therefore the decision taken with regard to regr,riarizatiorr r:f the seruices of the petitioner does r-rot suff'er flom any il!c-uaiirl, anci heuce ihe writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Llar ing criir-sidcred the respective contentions and perused the record. it rnat' be nt-tcd that tlie petitioner seeks regularizatior-r of his sen'ices as.lur.rici Linernan with effect from 18.07.2007 contending that the aliegations n:acl: against him perlain to the pcriod prior to his appointment as.l',rnior l,inernan and the disciptinary proceedings initiated against hirn alc r.'lthout jurisdiction. However, it ma,v bc notcd that on a replesentat ii-,n clated I 8.04.2Ct17 r'eceived from one A. Ravi Kumar 5 \rrp-74400 7077 NBK, J atleging that the petitioner collected unauthorizcd atnounts fl'otn consumers in SC.Nos. 1114,1161, and I t73 of Cat-ll (pouitry f-arms) for sanctioning service connections and irregular sanctiotl of fresh connectiot.ts in Amistapur village and coilecting ar ouuts ranging frorn Rs.l200i- to Rs.l500/- instead of the prescribed Rs'525i- lrorn fiesh consurncl's, a vigilance enquiry was conducted' and the Inspector ol Poiice. APTS, .rU,litt"a a Report dated 04'06'2007' confirming that the pctitioncr collected amounts exceeding the prescribed l'ees frorn consumers. Thereafter, a Show Cause notice proposing removal frotn servicc rvas issued to the petitiouer vide Memo dated 09'08'2007; horvcvcr. considering his explanation, it was decided to observc l.ris conduct arld performance, and his services were regttlarized after conrpleriorl of three years from 18'07'2007' i'e ' with effect fionr 18.07.2010. The petitioner's appeal against the final order was re'!ected on 28.0,1.20 I I . The contention that the petitioner' being a contract labourer' \\,as not sub.iect to the organization's conduct rules is untenable' as the allegations pcrlain to unauthorizecl collection of tnonel ft ont consttttlers' whichis a serious misconduct affecting public interest' ln that vierv of the matte r-. this Court does not see any illegality in initiating the disciplinary piocecdings and deciding to regularize his services afler obselving his con<lttct and pertbrmance' The respondent authorities' instead of te nninating tl.re services of the petitioner' have been in fact ienient in thcir approach by giving him a chance to remain in service and mend his ways 'l-here lore' and conduct himself according to the rules of the organization' this Court docs not find any illegalitf in regularizing his services fi'orn 6 wp 744OO 2011 N BK, J -I

18.07.2010 and re.iecting the appealr'mercy petition or non-considering his further representations to advance his regularization to an anterior date.

6. Acccldingir. the rllii petition is dismissed. Nc costs. Miscellaneous petitions penriing" if an-v. shall stand closed. /iTRUE COPY// '1 . One CC to Sri D. L. Pandu, Advocate [OPUC] 2. lwo CCs to GP for Energy, High Court for the 3. One CC to Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy (SC for Tela 4. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] To, TJ CJP A{\ SD/. B. REKHA RANI TANT REGISTRAR I SECTION OFFICER State of Telangana, at ngana TRANSCO) IOPUCI HIGH COURT DATED:2810512025 ORDER WP.No.14400 ot 2017 toR 1HE S r4 o O t o- 2 4 JUL 206 i_ .() -.! t .QS;.,a, .r i-l r;o r\ * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS