APSEB – Contract Labours – to absorb the petitioners into any suitable post with effect from March, 2016 (since their claim was rejected in February, 2016) along with all consequential benefits from that date. – the petitioners cannot be denied of the relief for the alleged fault of the respondents in not maintaining the records for verification of the data.

  1. APSEB – Contract Labours – to absorb the petitioners into any suitable post with effect from March, 2016 (since their claim was rejected in February, 2016) along with all consequential benefits from that date. – the petitioners cannot be denied of the relief for the alleged fault of the respondents in not maintaining the records for verification of the data.
    Some of the agreements were found to be true and how M-Books are also traced. If the rest are not available, the petitioners cannot be faulted. The data furnished at pages 130 to 135 is attested by an Assistant Divisional Engineer and also certified by the contractor. This data shows that the petitioners were working as casual labour in the relevant period. To expect them to do more would be asking them to do the impossible.
    The petitioners before this Court are claiming themselves to be Contract Labour, who worked with a Contractor called M.Sambasiva Rao. The said contractor worked for the erstwhile A.P. Electricity Board who was the predecessor of the respondents herein. It is submitted that on 18.05.1997, the A.P.S.E.B framed a scheme for absorption of casual labour into certain regular jobs. As per the scheme, the contract labour are eligible to be considered for appointment against 50% of the existing vacancies and that seniority shall be reckoned based upon the service rendered by the candidates. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioners have applied for selection. Since their applications were rejected, they filed WP.No.22713 of 2004 and the same was allowed by this Hon’ble Court directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners.-a contempt case was also filed and the same was dismissed on 01.09.2017. Pursuant to the above contempt case, the proceedings dated 05.02.2016 were issued, which are now impugned in the present writ petition. The said order is issued rejecting the case of the petitioners on the ground that the Service Certificate issued by the contractor is not certified, the adequate details of the work along with relevant agreement numbers have not produced and that the certificate did not disclose the volume of work done by the contractor and number of persons engaged.
    Held
    This Court notices that on 23.04.2015, the petitioners had addressed letters to the 3rd respondent. In para 9 of the said letter, they have also furnished details of the agreements, the nature of work and the sub-division and section. This was followed out by another letter dated 23.10.2015, wherein both the petitioners gave a tabular statement of the contracts executed by the contractor for whom the petitioners have stated to have worked. The letter dated 30.07.2015 addressed by the Divisional Electrical Engineer to 3rd respondent also gives a tabular statement of the works executed by M.Sambasiva Rao (contractor) from 1996 to 1998. Lastly, the memo filed by the petitioners at the directions of this Court to link the data in pages 130 to 135 to the petitioners is also disclosing that (from 01.09.1996 to 31.12.1997), the various agreements and the period under which the petitioners worked with the contractor. These are spelt out with clarity. The reply of the department seems to be to the effect that after verifying the available records, the respondents came to a conclusion that the petitioners have not made out their case. This Court is unable to accept this facile and simple explanation. Records which ought to have been maintained 8 cannot be said to have been “not available”. No rule or statutory authority is mentioned in the counter affidavit that is filed about the destruction of any document/records. No reason is forthcoming why some of the records were available. It is also not comprehensible as to how State can say that so many records are missing. They did not even point out when and how this large volume of record is missing and who was responsible for the same. If at all a record is actually missing, action should have been initiated against the custodian of the records. No details are furnished nor is there any clarity how the files were missing. The details of the agreements are furnished with sufficient clarity in the letters referred to above, in the pages 130 to 135 of the material papers of the writ and also in the communications dated 20.10.2015 addressed by the petitioners. The same were also condensed into a memo and filed on 18.02.2020 with USR.No.11658 of 2020. There is no denial of these facts. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners have complied with the orders of the Division Bench in letter and spirit. The details of the work done with contract members are furnished with sufficient clarity for the respondents to verify the same. The contractor has certified that the petitioners worked with them. The same is attested by an Assistant Divisional Engineer. The details of the contracts are given with great clarity. It is for the respondents to verify the same. If the State itself does not 9 have access to its mandatory records, it would be far fetched to expect the petitioners to have all the records to show the work discharged by them. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioners are “contract labourers” working under an un-licenced contractors. To expect them to produce greater details of the work done and the period of work is not correct in the opinion of this Court. The respondents have more than once given the period of work, the agreement details to the respondents. Some of the agreements were found to be true and how M-Books are also traced. If the rest are not available, the petitioners cannot be faulted. The data furnished at pages 130 to 135 is attested by an Assistant Divisional Engineer and also certified by the contractor. This data shows that the petitioners were working as casual labour in the relevant period. To expect them to do more would be asking them to do the impossible. In that view of the matter, this Court holds that the petitioners cannot be denied of the relief for the alleged fault of the respondents in not maintaining the records for verification of the data.
    2020[3]APHC78-WP 44691/2017-T. Panduranga Vittal and another-VS-APSPDCL chittoor and others

Main Number
WP 44691/2017
SR Number
WPSR 248847/2017
Petitioner
T.Panduranga Vittal,
Respondent
APSPDC
Petitioner Advocate
M PITCHAIAH
Respondent Advocate

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
W.P.No.44691 of 2017
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief by
the two petitioners who are before this Court.
“to issue a writ order or direction
particularly one in the nature of writ of
Mandamus declaring the order bearing
Lr.No.SE/O/VIA/PO/Adm/JAO.I/U2/D.N
o.331/2016, dated 05.02.2016 issued by
the 3rd respondent seeking absorption of
our services as arbitrary illegal and
unconstitutional and violative of Article 14
and 21 of the Constitution of India and
consequently direct the respondents to
absorb the petitioners into regular service
of the respondents corporation in any
suitable post from the date of eligibility of
the petitioners and for payment of salary
from the date of eligibility with all
consequential benefits interest at 12
percent per annum and grant costs of the
proceedings.”
This Court has heard Sri M.Pitchaiah, learned counsel
for the petitioners and Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, learned counsel for
the respondents 1 to 3.
2
The petitioners before this Court are claiming
themselves to be Contract Labour, who worked with a
Contractor called M.Sambasiva Rao. The said contractor
worked for the erstwhile A.P. Electricity Board who was the
predecessor of the respondents herein. It is submitted that
on 18.05.1997, the A.P.S.E.B framed a scheme for absorption
of casual labour into certain regular jobs. As per the scheme,
the contract labour are eligible to be considered for
appointment against 50% of the existing vacancies and that
seniority shall be reckoned based upon the service rendered
by the candidates. Pursuant to the said notification, the
petitioners have applied for selection. Since their applications
were rejected, they filed WP.No.22713 of 2004 and the same
was allowed by this Hon’ble Court directing the respondents
to consider the case of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the
same, the respondents filed WA.No.260 of 2010 which
modified the order of the single Judge. The Division Bench
directed the respondents to verify the service particulars with
greater clarity etc. Thereafter, as the case of the petitioners
was not considered, contempt case was also filed and the
same was dismissed on 01.09.2017. Pursuant to the above
contempt case, the proceedings dated 05.02.2016 were
issued, which are now impugned in the present writ petition.
The said order is issued rejecting the case of the petitioners
on the ground that the Service Certificate issued by the
contractor is not certified, the adequate details of the work
3
along with relevant agreement numbers have not produced
and that the certificate did not disclose the volume of work
done by the contractor and number of persons engaged.
Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argues that
the certificates submitted by the petitioners is signed by the
contractor and counter signed/attested by the Assistant
Divisional Engineer. He drew the attention of the Court to the
tabular statement which is also certified. Apart from that, he
points out that a learned single Judge of the Court in
WP.No.22713 of 2004 has passed an order directing the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for
appointment. He points out that even in the order passed by
the Division Bench in WA.No.260 of 2010, the following
direction is given.
“………. In that view of the matter,
we are of the view that mere attestation by
the Assistant Divisional Engineer is not
sufficient and the service certificates are to
be certified by the concerned Officer with
reference to the agreements entered by the
Department with the licensed/unlicensed
contractors. In view of the same, we deem
it appropriate to dispose of the writ appeal
permitting the appellants to examine the
service certificates filed by the
respondent/writ petitioners so as to
ascertain whether they conform to the
requirements as per B.P.Ms.No.36 dated
18.05.1997 and whether the writ
petitioners have worked as contract labour
or not, with reference to the agreements
4
entered by the Department with the
contractors, before taking a decision. It is
open to the respondent/writ petitioners to
place the relevant material to substantiate
their claim that they worked as contract
labour during the relevant time. As the
claims of the respondent/writ petitioners
are pending, the appellants shall pass
appropriate orders in the light of the
directions issued in this order, within a
period of two months from today.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that along
with the writ petition, the petitioners have filed details of the
contract works done by the contractor for APSEB. He points
out that large number of contracts were executed in this
period. Learned counsel also argues that there is no denial of
the facts that are mentioned in para 3 of the writ affidavit
that the petitioners are working as contract labour.
Thereafter, learned counsel submits that as per the directions
of this Court, a separate memo was also filed consolidating
the information and linking it to the various pages of the writ
petition, which is as follows:
MEMO FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIOENRS
It is humbly submitted that as directed by this Hon’ble Court
on13.02.2020, the service particulars of the petitioners are furnished in a
Tabular form, as mentioned below:
Sl.No. Name of the Period of Agreement No. Page Nos in W.P.
Writ Petitioner Employment Material Papers.


  1. T.Panduranga 01.09.1996 to LS Agreement No.9, 116, 117,
    Vittal 31.12.1997 Chit Agreement No.3, 134 & 135
    K2 Agreement No.2,
    Chit Agreement Nos.9 to
    5
    26 & 29 to 31
  2. S.Anjani 01.02.1997 to LS Agreement No.20, 119, 120,
    Kumar 31.03.1998 K2 Agreement No.2, 134 & 135
    Chit Agreement Nos.9 to 26,
    29 to 31
    LS Agreement No.35
    Amaravathi
    Date : 18.02.2020 Counsel for the petitioners.
    As per him, this clearly shows that the agreements, the
    period and the works, which were done by the petitioners
    before this Court. Therefore, learned counsel argues that the
    petitioners are wrongfully denied all their lawful entitlement
    and that they should be absorbed into service in terms of the
    G.O. that was applicable at the time they were working as
    contract labour. He points out that there is no denial of the
    fact that the petitioners worked at the relevant point of time
    as contract labour. He argues that the only issue that has to
    be seen in line with the Division Bench judgment is to corelate the information furnished with the departmental data
    so as to ensure that the petitioners were working as casual
    labour at that relevant point of time with a contractor.
    In reply to this, learned standing counsel for the
    respondents argues in line with the counter affidavit that was
    filed. He also reiterates the various findings that are
    mentioned earlier as delivered by the learned single Judge
    and the Division Bench. It is also clearly admitted that the
    petitioners have furnished information on 23.10.2015. After
    considering the said data, it is stated that the claim of the
    6
    petitioners was rejected. It is also stated that since the
    service certificate did not mention the agreement numbers
    and were not attested by an Officer concerned, the claims of
    the petitioners were rejected. Therefore, learned standing
    counsel states that since the data furnished by the petitioners
    was not adequate and or clear, the case of the petitioners was
    rejected in line with the orders of the Division Bench.
    In reply to this, learned counsel for the petitioners
    argues that the data furnished was more than adequate to
    enable the respondents to come to a conclusion. He relies
    upon the letter dated 30.07.,2015 addressed by the Divisional
    Electrical Engineer to the 3rd respondent herein, wherein
    some agreements were found to be identified and four
    numbers of M-Books were also traced out. This information
    was submitted to the 3rd respondent. Learned counsel also
    relies upon the counter affidavit filed by the respondents
    which states that they have verified the available records and
    that no material was found while searching for the old
    records, necessary orders were issued basing on the available
    records. Learned counsel’s argument is that specific data
    was given of the agreements which also condensed and filed
    in the form of a memo, which is reproduced above. He argues
    that the respondents cannot take shelter under the plea that
    the documents were not available to verify. Therefore, he
    argues that as the petitioners have complied with the orders
    7
    of the Division Bench, this is a fit case to pass appropriate
    orders.
    This Court notices that on 23.04.2015, the petitioners
    had addressed letters to the 3rd respondent. In para 9 of the
    said letter, they have also furnished details of the agreements,
    the nature of work and the sub-division and section. This
    was followed out by another letter dated 23.10.2015, wherein
    both the petitioners gave a tabular statement of the contracts
    executed by the contractor for whom the petitioners have
    stated to have worked. The letter dated 30.07.2015
    addressed by the Divisional Electrical Engineer to 3rd
    respondent also gives a tabular statement of the works
    executed by M.Sambasiva Rao (contractor) from 1996 to
    1998.
    Lastly, the memo filed by the petitioners at the
    directions of this Court to link the data in pages 130 to 135 to
    the petitioners is also disclosing that (from 01.09.1996 to
    31.12.1997), the various agreements and the period under
    which the petitioners worked with the contractor. These are
    spelt out with clarity.
    The reply of the department seems to be to the effect
    that after verifying the available records, the respondents
    came to a conclusion that the petitioners have not made out
    their case.
    This Court is unable to accept this facile and simple
    explanation. Records which ought to have been maintained
    8
    cannot be said to have been “not available”. No rule or
    statutory authority is mentioned in the counter affidavit that
    is filed about the destruction of any document/records. No
    reason is forthcoming why some of the records were available.
    It is also not comprehensible as to how State can say that so
    many records are missing. They did not even point out when
    and how this large volume of record is missing and who was
    responsible for the same. If at all a record is actually missing,
    action should have been initiated against the custodian of the
    records. No details are furnished nor is there any clarity how
    the files were missing. The details of the agreements are
    furnished with sufficient clarity in the letters referred to
    above, in the pages 130 to 135 of the material papers of the
    writ and also in the communications dated 20.10.2015
    addressed by the petitioners. The same were also condensed
    into a memo and filed on 18.02.2020 with USR.No.11658 of
  3. There is no denial of these facts.
    In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion
    that the petitioners have complied with the orders of the
    Division Bench in letter and spirit. The details of the work
    done with contract members are furnished with sufficient
    clarity for the respondents to verify the same. The contractor
    has certified that the petitioners worked with them. The
    same is attested by an Assistant Divisional Engineer. The
    details of the contracts are given with great clarity. It is for
    the respondents to verify the same. If the State itself does not
    9
    have access to its mandatory records, it would be far fetched
    to expect the petitioners to have all the records to show the
    work discharged by them. The Court cannot lose sight of the
    fact that the petitioners are “contract labourers” working
    under an un-licenced contractors. To expect them to
    produce greater details of the work done and the period of
    work is not correct in the opinion of this Court. The
    respondents have more than once given the period of work,
    the agreement details to the respondents. Some of the
    agreements were found to be true and how M-Books are also
    traced. If the rest are not available, the petitioners cannot be
    faulted. The data furnished at pages 130 to 135 is attested
    by an Assistant Divisional Engineer and also certified by the
    contractor. This data shows that the petitioners were working
    as casual labour in the relevant period. To expect them to do
    more would be asking them to do the impossible.
    In that view of the matter, this Court holds that the
    petitioners cannot be denied of the relief for the alleged fault
    of the respondents in not maintaining the records for
    verification of the data.
    Hence, there should be a direction as prayed for to the
    respondents to absorb the petitioners into any suitable post
    with effect from March, 2016 (since their claim was rejected
    in February, 2016) along with all consequential benefits from
    that date.
    10
    With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. No
    costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions if any shall
    stand dismissed.

D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU,J
Date : 19.03.2020
KLP
+++++++++++++++++++++++++