APHC010359292019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 17136/2019 Between: 1. TUPAKULA SRINIVASA RAO, S/O.LATE BHASKARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O.12-17-1/1, 8TH WARD, REPALLE, GUNTUR DISTRICT. AADHAAR NO.626578484222. 2. TUPAKULA BABURAO, BHASKARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O.12-17-1/1, 8111 WARD, REPALLE, GUNTUR DISTRICT. AADHAAR NO.2180 9890 9248. 3. Y.BHAGYA LAKSHMI, W/O.LATE SUBRAHMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O.12-17-1/1, 8TH WARD, REPAILE,.GUPTUR DISTRICT. AADHAAR NO.2735 0908 8689. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT A.P.SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. REPALLE MUNICIPALITY, REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER REPALLE, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. PRAGATHI PARISHUDHYA SEVA SANGHAM, D.NO.17-15-12A, INDIRA NAGAR, PONNURU, GUNTUR DISTRICT. REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. D.KASIM SAHEB(SC FOR MUNICIPALITIES SERVICE 2. D. KASIM SAHEB ( STANING COUNCEL FOR SERVICE MATTERS OF MUNICIPALITIES AND MUNICIPAL CORPORTATIONS The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not taking the petitioners into their services as contract workers ignoring their continuous service of 15 years in the 2nd Respondent Municipality as arbitrary, illegal, capricious and violative of provisions of The Contract Labour (Regulation And Abolition) Act, 1970 and consequently direct the respondents not to terminate the services of the petitioners without following due process of law.” 2. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri D.Kasim Saheb, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioners worked as Contract Labour in the Corporation of Respondent No.2 for 15 years. Learned counsel would further submit that, a criminal case has been lodged against the Petitioners, which was registered as Crime No.163 of 2019, dated 30.05.2019 for the offence under Section 354-A read with 34 IPC. Learned counsel would submit that Respondent No.3 stopped the supply of the Petitioners to Respondent No.2 since the Petitioners were arrested and 3 subsequently were released on bail. It is submitted that, thereafter, the Petitioners approached the Mandal Legal Services Authority, Repalle by filing P.L.C.No.59 of 2019, wherein, Respondent No.3 appeared and addressed a letter to Respondent No.2 to consider the case of the Petitioners. Learned counsel would further submit that, Respondent No.2 has not taken any decision over the request made by Respondent No.3. It is submitted that a direction may be given to Respondent No.2 to consider the request of Respondent No.3 in this regard. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that Respondent No.2 is not the employer of the Petitioners. It is submitted that the Petitioners were engaged by Respondent No.3, which is the man power supply agency. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that, Respondent No.3 supplied the man power to Respondent No.2 – Corporation on contract basis. Respondent No.2 has nothing to do with the transactions between the Petitioners and Respondent No.3. Learned Standing Counsel would finally submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders in this regard. 5. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record would show that, there is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioners were engaged by Respondent No.3, which is the man power supply agency. It is also not in dispute that a criminal case has been registered against the Petitioners and they were in judicial remand for some period and thereafter they were released on bail. On the request of the Petitioners after their release, Respondent No.3 has requested Respondent 4 No.2 to take the Petitioners into service on contract basis. As reported, Respondent No.2 has not yet taken any decision over the matter. 6. In that view, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing Respondent No.2 to take a call over the request made by Respondent No.3 regarding the case of the Petitioners and take appropriate decision according to governing Rules and Law, since the case which was registered against them is not relating to their employment. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:16.04.2025 Dinesh 5 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.17136 of 2019 Dt.16.04.2025 Dinesh