APHC010474292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3549] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA WRIT PETITION NO: 24528/2025 Between: 1. T L V PRASAD, S/O. T. BHASKARA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC CASUAL LABOUR, R/O. H-NO. 4-145, NAVULURU, NEAR NAVULURU GATE, MANGALAGIRI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHARA PRADESH. 2. KOPPERAJAYUDU,, S/O. SRI OBANNA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC CASUAL LABOUR, R/O. H-NO. 17-546, MALKAJGIRI, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT. 3. R.B. VENKATESWARLU, , S/O. SRI CHINA RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC CASUAL LABOUR, R/O. H-NO. 2-41, NANDAVARAM, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. G. RAVI,, S/O. SRI ANIMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC. CASUAL LABOUR, R/O. H-NO. 46/154, BUDHAVARIPETA, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 5. A. PARVATHI,, W/O. SRI MAHESH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC. CASUAL LABOUR, R/O. H-NO. 64-150, KONDAREDDYBURZU, KURNOOLDISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH. 6. G. SHIVA KUMAR,, S/O. SRI G. ESHWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC. CASUAL LABOUR, R/O. H-NO. 6-63, JONNAGIRI, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADSH. 7. GAJULAVENKATAPPA,, S/O. SRI G. SHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC. CASUAL LABOUR, R/O. H-NO. 6-61, JONNAGIRI, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 8. M. SHANTANNA,, S/O. SRI NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC. CASUAL LABOUR, R/O. ARUNAJYOTHI NAGAR, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 9. M. NARASAPPA,, S/O. SRI M. KASANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC- CASUAL LABOUR, R/O. KOTA SARASWATHI NAGAR, ADONI, KUMOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 10. CHAKALI NAGENDRA,, S/O. SRI CHAKALIMADILETI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC- CASUAL LABOUR, R/O. H-NO. 1-55, KALLUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 11. CHAKALINAGARAJU,, S/O. SRI CHAKALIAYYANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC- CASUAL LABOUR, R/O. H-NO. 3-72, NIDJUR, KUMOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 2 12. A. NAGARATNAMMA, , W/O. SRI A. SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC- CASUAL LABOUR, R/O. H-NO. 41-102, NAGAPPA STREET, KUMOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 13. R. ANJANAIAH, , S/O. SRI R. ADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC- CASUAL LABOUR, R/O. H-NO. 2060, TUGGALAGRAMAM, KUMOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 14. G. CHINNASRIRAMULU,, S/O. SRI LATE G. PULLANNA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC CASUAL LABOUR, R/O. 4-103, PEDDAVADAGURU, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. (PETITIONERS HEREIN ARE THE APPLICANTS NO. 1, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 AND 24 IN THE O.A.SR.(DIARY) NO. 687 OF 2025 BEFORE THE HONBLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CULTURE, NEW DELHI. 2. THE ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL, 24, TILAK MARG, NEW DELHI -110 011 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ARCHEOLOGY, ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, AMARAVATHI CIRCLE, PLOT NO. 508, R.R. HEIGHTS, ENIKEPADU ROAD, NEAR TADIGADAPA, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE CONSERVATIVE ASSISTANT, ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, VIJAYAWADA SUB-CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE CONSERVATIVE ASSISTANT, ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, NAGARJUNASAGAR SUB-CIRCLE, NAGARJUNASAGAR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. THE CONSERVATIVE ASSISTANT, ARCHEOLOGIAL SURVEY OF INDIA, KURNOOL SUB-CIRCLE, KUMOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 7. THE CONSERVATIVE ASSISTANT, ANANTHAPUR SUB-CIRCLE, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 8. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, , HYDERABAD REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, NO. 5-10-193, C' FLOOR, HACA BHAVAN, HYDERABAD. 9. MANDLIGAJJALAIAH, S/O. MANDLIANJANEYULU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC CASUAL LABOUR, R/O. H-NO. 3-233, PENUMAKA VILLAGE, TADEPALLI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 10. VADDEYESUBABU, S/O. SRI ABHRAHAM, AGED ABOUT 30, OCC CASUAL LABOUR, R/O CHERUVU BAZAAR, RAMAREDDIPALLI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 11. YELLABELLICHINNARAO, S/O. SRI YELLABELIPOOLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC CASUAL LABOUR, R/O. QUARTER NO. 3 A/71, VIJAYAPUR SOUTH VILLAGE, FILTER HOUSE AREA, MACHERLA RURAL AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ, order or directions, more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to and connected with order dated 10-06-2025 in O.A.Sr (diary) No. 687 of 2025 passed by the Honble Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad and Bid Documents, dated 29-08-2025 respectively issued by the official respondents and set aside the same and to declare the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioners to discharge their legitimate duties and sign the attendance register orally without issuing any termination/removal orders is being arbitrary, illegal, unjust, perverse, hostile discrimination, contrary to the service jurisprudence, besides being violation of article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently hold that, the petitioners are entitled to discharge their legitimate duties which are entrusted to them on par with the regular employees and to sign the attendance register, including payment of arrears with all consequential benefits and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith allow the petitioners to discharge their duties as Casual laborers and to allow them to sign the attendance register by duly suspending the operation of the order dated; 10- 06-2025 in O.A.SR (diary) No. 687 of 2025 and passed by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad and Bid Documents, dated 29-08-2025 respectively issued by the official respondents pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. A PHANI BHUSHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. NARASIMHARAO GUDISEVA (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL) 2. GP FOR SERVICES II 4 The Court made the following Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) Heard Mr.B.Ramulu, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr.Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 7, made submissions with reference to the instructions received by him. 2. The petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench seeking to declare the action of the official respondents in not allowing the applicants to discharge their legitimate duties and sign the attendance register orally without issuing any termination/removal orders is being arbitrary, illegal, unjust, perverse, hostile discrimination, contrary to the service jurisprudence, besides being violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently hold that, the applicants are entitled to discharge their legitimate duties which are entrusted to them on par with the regular employees and sign the attendance register along with all consequential benefits, including payment of arrears and salaries. They also filed Miscellaneous Application seeking a direction to allow them to discharge legitimate duties as casual labourers and sign the attendance register. 3. It appears that initially the O.A. was filed directly without making any representation to the official respondents. Subsequently after making a representation dated 03.05.2025 which was sent through registered post on 13.05.2025, the matter was represented. The learned Tribunal on hearing the learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners on the office objections, passed order dated 10.06.2025 inter alia observing as follows: “We have perused the record and seen that the OA is premature for the sake of just submitted representation, and immediately he approached this Tribunal. The objection raised by the Registry is sustained”. The said order came to be challenged by way of the present Writ Petition. 5 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners though made submissions with reference to the various contentions raised in the Writ Petition touching upon the merits of the case and by placing reliance on the various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court deems it not expedient to examine the matter in detail since, the Tribunal was not inclined to entertain the O.A. only in view of the office objections. 5. On a perusal of the material placed before this Court, it transpires that a representation was made as long back as on 13.05.2025 to the respondent authorities through registered post. Though nothing is forth coming with regard to passing of any orders on the said representation except a denial, this Court is of the view that instead of examining the matter on merits, it is appropriate to leave the issues for examination by the learned Tribunal in the O.A. on its own merits, in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to both sides. 6. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the attempt on the part of the official respondents to replace the petitioners with another set of temporary employees is not sustainable as per the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, in fact, it is an attempt on the part of the respondents to overreach the orders of the Tribunal dated 02.02.2024 passed in O.A.Nos.20/87 of 2019 and 20/99 of 2022 and, in that process the official respondents have invited the bids vide Bid Document dated 29.08.2025 and seeks a direction to protect the interest of the petitioners, till appropriate orders are passed by the learned Tribunal. 7. 7. This Court in the light of the opinion expressed supra and urgency in the matter, while leaving it open to the petitioners to pursue the O.A., dispose of the Writ Petition providing that the learned Tribunal shall take up the O.A. and make endeavour to dispose of the Miscellaneous Application as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without reference to the order dated 10.06.2025. Till appropriate orders are 6 passed by the learned Tribunal, the respondents shall not finalize the bids, if the same is not done, till date. 8. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J _______________________ TUHIN KUMAR GEDELA,J Date : 23.09.2025 Note : Issue CC tomorrow B/o BMS