APHC010169712012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 12299/2012 Between: S. Thirupal Naik and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Central Power Distribution Company Of A P Ltd and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P SREE RAMULU NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P LAXMA REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) 2. P LAKSHMA REDDY 3. Venkata Rama Rao Kota SC FOR APSPDCL The Court made the following Order : WP.No.12299 of 2012 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION No.12299 of 2012 ORDER : The petitioners are seeking a direction to appoint the petitioners on regular basis by regularizing their services. All the petitioners had completed ITI Electrical Trade and working as Contract Labour with the 1st respondent-organization. 2. The petitioners while working suffered injuries on account of electric shock. On account their injuries the petitioners could not qualify to apply for the post of Junior Lineman. The 1st respondent intended to recruit Junior Lineman and issued a notification. On account of the physical disability which the petitioners suffered while on duty they could not qualify for applying to the post of Junior Lineman. 3. The petitioners seek a direction from this Court to give preference in recruitment for the petitioners as was done in the case of several other contract employees who suffered injuries while on duty. The petitioners rely on the directions issued by this Court in WP.No.11249 of 2007 and WP.No.14503 of 2007. 4. This Court vide orders dated 25.04.2012, directed the respondents to provide any alternative job to the petitioners within WP.No.12299 of 2012 a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 5. The respondents in their counter submit that the petitioners were never appointed by the 1st respondent, as such, they cannot claim any beneficial treatment for the injuries suffered by them while on duty. It is submitted that the 1st respondent issued a notification for filling up the posts of Junior lineman in ten operation circles. As many as 232 vacancies were notified in Ananthapur circle. All the petitioners, except the 2nd petitioner applied for the said post. It is also submitted that weightage marks were given to in-service candidates also. 6. The learned standing counsel for the respondents submits that the 1st respondent has entered into an agreement with a contractor for providing pole to pole labour and that the contractor has indemnified the 1st respondent of all liabilities in all cases of personal injury to his employees, employed by him on the assigned work. The contractor is responsible for payment of any compensation for any fatal or any kind of accident. It is submitted that the 1st respondent is indemnified by the contract from all such claims. 7. This Court while taking up the matter for final hearing requested the standing counsel for the respondent to place on record the WP.No.12299 of 2012 latest position of the petitioners. All the petitioners are working as on date as Shift Operators/pole to pole workers. The 2nd petitioner has crossed the age of 60 years and he is not attending the duties from 01.01.2025. 8. It is also submitted that the notification was cancelled. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 10. The petitioners are working under a contractor as on the date of suffering the injury while on duty. It is also not in dispute that the contractor has indemnified the 1st respondent of all liabilities including payment of compensation on account of fatal injury or other injuries. In other words the contractor is responsible for compensating the injured workers employed by him. 11. The contractor is also not arraigned as a party as respondent and the terms and conditions of employment of the petitioners with the contractor are also not placed before this Court. It is also not known as to whether the petitioners were employed by the contractor exclusively for being deployed to work as pole to pole workers with the 1st respondent. The terms and conditions of payment are also not before this Court. In absence of these details and in absence of the terms and conditions of employment WP.No.12299 of 2012 of the petitioners, this Court cannot direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners. 12. At any rate, the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 are continuing in service and the 2nd petitioner continued his service till he attained superannuation on 31.12.2024. 13. For these facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed off, directing the respondents to continue the petitioners 1, 3 and 4 till they attain the age of superannuation. No costs. 14. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dated 02.04.2025 KGM WP.No.12299 of 2012 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION No.12299 of 2012 Dated 02.04.2025 KGM