APHC010467312012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 20587/2012 Between: Ravada Appalanarasamma and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Government Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V PADMANABHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR GVMC) 2. K MADHAVA REDDY 3. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Municipality. 2. The petitioners were working under various Grama Panchayats. Some of the petitioners were working in Gajuwaka 2 Municipality and 32 Grama Panchayats under the fold of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (GVMC). The Gajuwaka Municipality and 32 Grama Panchayats were merged into GVMC vide G.O.Ms.No.938, dated 21.11.2005. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners thereafter rendered services at GVMC and had completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993, thereby being entitled to regularization of their services. The petitioners working under GVMC seek regularization of their services and the pay scales attached to the post of regular employees. However, this benefit was not extended, and as a result, the employees' union took up the cause of the petitioners. The denial of time-scale benefits is under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have filed separate counters. 4. Respondent No. 1, in their counter, submits that the NMR workers who were working in the erstwhile Gajuwaka Municipality and 32 Grama Panchayats were regularized. The petitioners were working under contractors, and some of them were working under Residential Welfare Associations. It is stated in the counter that wages were paid by the contractors/Residential Welfare Associations. It is also submitted that the petitioners were not on 3 the rolls of GVMC, and as such, they cannot claim the extension of the time-scale or regularization. It is further submitted that although the petitioners claim to have completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993, the averments in the writ petition are not correct. It is stated that some of the petitioners had not even attained the age of majority (18 years) by 25.11.1993, and therefore, could not have completed five years of service by that date. It is also mentioned that, except for 13 petitioners, the remaining 435 petitioners in the present writ petition had not attained the age of 18 years by 25.11.1993, and thus, the question of completing five years of service by 25.11.1993 does not arise. 5. Respondent No.3 has also filed a separate counter and reiterated the stand taken by Respondent No. 1 regarding the eligibility of the petitioners for the extension of the time scale. In paragraph No.6 of the counter, Respondent No. 3 stated that the petitioners might have been paid wages till 2006 by Respondent No.3, but such payments were made only to ensure that wages were paid to the workmen on time. However, this cannot be construed as direct employment under GVMC. It is also stated that the petitioners were paid minimum wages, on par with Office 4 Subordinates, through contract agencies as per Government Order G.O.Rt.No.333, dated 07.03.2011. 6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents, and after reviewing the records, it is noted that the petitioners have not filed any documents to substantiate their nature of engagement with the Grama Panchayats/Gajuwaka Municipality. Admittedly, except for 93 petitioners, the remaining 435 petitioners in the present writ petition had not attained the age of majority (18 years) by 25.11.1993. This Court, without giving a finding on the age and entitlement of the petitioners for having completed the qualifying period of five years as of 25.11.1993, notes that the petitioners have not submitted any documents to substantiate their engagement. In the absence of an employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and the respondents, this Court finds no grounds to direct the respondents to extend the time-scale to the petitioners, as there is no documentation to substantiate the claim that their services were under the command and control of Respondent No.3. 7. With these observations, the writ petition is closed, leaving it open for the petitioners to submit a representation, duly 5 notifying the concerned respondents of the nature of their engagement and terms of payment of wages. If such a representation is made, the concerned respondents shall duly consider the case of the petitioners and pass necessary orders. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed. No order as to costs. 9. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dt: 24.02.2025. S D P 6 229 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No. 20587 OF 2012 24.02.2025 W S D P