1 APHC010221322025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 11545/2025 Between: 1. PUCHAKAYALA SREENU, S/O P. VENKATESWARLU, INDIAN, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, EMPLOYEE, R/O AMMANAGUDIPADU (V), Y. PALEM (M), PRAKASHAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. ANDHRA PRADESH CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBURION CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, GUNADALA, VIJAYAWADA. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, APCPDCL, ONGOLE. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION DIVISION, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. DY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OPERATION, SUB- DIVISION, YERRAGUNTAPALEM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, OPERATION SECTION, YERRAGUNTAPALEM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2 6. THE GREEN HAUL PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR, FLAT NO. 504, TARAKARAMA HYBLE, 6TH LANE, GUNTUR-522006. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K ARUNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.11545 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: “….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the respondents, Particularly 3rd Respondent in passing the impugned Lr. No. EE/O/MRK/JAO/(Adm)/Sr. Asst/D.No.279/25, Dt. 02-04-2025 and not allowing the petitioner to attend to the duty as Shift Operator at 33/11 KV Sub-station, at Ammanagudipadu Village, Y. Palem, Prakasham District without any order or notice as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the Principles of Natural Justice and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India And set aside the Impugned Letter vide Lr. No. EE/O/MRK/JAO/(Adm)/Sr.Asst/D.No. 279/25, Dt. 02-04- 2025 issued by 3rd Respondent and consequently direct the respondents to re-instate the petitioner in duty at 33/11 KV Sub-station, at Ammanagudipadu Village, Y. Palem, Prakasham District…” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5. 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a contract employee engaged as a Shift Operator at 33/11 KV Sub-Station at Ammanagudipadu Village, Y.Palem, Prakasam District, under the control of respondent No.6, the contractor. While so, vide impugned proceedings, dated 02.04.2025, the 3rd respondent directed the 6th respondent to remove the petitioner from the post of Shift Operator without issuing any orders or any show-cause notice. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 4. During hearing, learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5, submitted that there is no relationship of employer and employee between respondent Nos.1 to 5 and the petitioner. Since the petitioner was engaged by the contractor, respondent No.6, the writ petition is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.467 of 2023, wherein it has categorically held in paragraph Nos.9 and 10 as follows: “9. Undisputedly there is no privity of contract between the official respondents and the appellant. The recruitment 5 was done by the respondent No.3 the contractor. The petitioner was not engaged by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 10. With respect to the payment by the respondent No.2 out of escrow account, in a similar matter, in W.P.Nos.12035, 12154 and 11898 of 2021, this aspect was elaborately dealt in judgment dated 05.08.2021. It is apt to reproduce the relevant part, as under:- “Therefore, a reading of these clauses cumulatively leads to a conclusion that in order to ensure that the amounts/salaries due to the workers are paid to them this escrow account has been opened. The account was not opened for any other reason. Normally, if a contractor is appointed he will raise a bill and collect the amounts, but as the payment of salaries to outsourced employees has become a matter of serious concern it was decided in the meeting held on 13.07.2018 to open these escrow accounts. The contractors stated that they have no objection if the operators are paid salaries directly through an escrow bank account.4 As far as the other issues are concerned it is clear that the recruitment is done by the contractor. The attendance sheet is prepared by the contractor. It is sent to the vendor to raise a bill. Clause 2.3 and in 2.11 of Working Methodology clearly state as follows: “2.3 Attendance Sheet shall be prepared each month separately for each sub-station. The attendance sheet shall be marked „P‟ for present and „A‟ for absence (pro- forma enclosed) and signed by the AE/or ADE of respective sub-stations and submit the same to the respective DE/Operation by 25th of every month, to admit 6 the vendor bill for payment; a copy of attendance sheet shall be mailed to the vendor to raise the bill accordingly. 2.11 The salaries shall be paid to the outsourced employees on 1st of every month through contractors‟ escrow account by Pay office seeking LOC against the liability documents.” Therefore, it is clear that the opening of the escrow account is for a specific purpose and it does not establish and employer-employee relationship between the petitioner/workmen and the official respondent. There is no privity of contract between the petitioners and the official respondents.” 5. Considering the above submissions and on perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 26.02.2026 Ivd 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.11545 of 2025 Dated: 26.02.2026 Ivd