APHC010536982016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 46812/2016 Between: 1. ALLURI PEERAIAH, KADAPA DIST, S/O. SESHULU, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACT LABOUR, R/O. DT-I, W REDDY NAGAR, RTPP, YERRAGUNTLA VILLAGE & MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. M D AP GENCO HYD 3 OT, VIDYUTH SOUDHA, SOMAJIGUDA, KHAIRATABAD, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DIRECTOR HR AP GENCO VIDYUTH SOUDHA, SOMAJIGUDA, KHAIRATABAD, HYDERABAD. 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY PERSONNEL AP GENCO, VIDYUTH SOUDHA, SOMAJIGUDA, KHAIRATABAD, HYDERABAD. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER OM RAYALASEEMA THERMAL POWER, PROJECT, V.V.REDDY NAGAR, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT ...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 to issue a writ or order, orders or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i. declaring the 2 action of the 4th respondent in not considering petitioner's representation dt.29-10-2016 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative and also violative of Arts.14 & 16 of the Constitution of India; and ii. consequently, direct the 4th respondent to consider petitioner's representation dt.29-10-2016. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PEETA RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M. VIDYASAGAR, ( STANDING COUNSEL FOR APGENCO ) 2. K ARUNA(SC FOR APGENCO) The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 46812 of 2016 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following main relief: “to declare the action of the 4th respondent in not considering petitioner's representation dated 29-10-2016 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative and also violative of Arts.14 & 16 of the Constitution of India; and consequently, direct the 4th respondent to consider petitioner's representation dated 29.10.2016.” 2. The principle grievance of the petitioner is that he worked as a contract labourer in the respondent No.4 - Corporation since 1991 and that he is having eligibility criteria for absorption as JPA/Man Mazdoor in the respondent No.4 - Corporation. In that process, by stating all the facts and circumstances, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 27.10.2016 to the respondent No.4 – Authorities; however the same has not been considered by the respondent No.4 - Authorities. 3. On the other hand, Sri K. Krishna Bhushan Chowdary, learned Standing Counsel for APGENCO, submits that the petitioner is apparently not eligible in terms of dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited and others vs. National Union Water 4 Front workers etc. 1. However, since the petitioner has preferred a representation dated 29.10.2016, and taking into consideration the subsequent events and exigencies, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition with the following direction. 4. Accordingly, the respondent No.4 is directed to consider the petitioner’s representation, dated 29.10.2016 strictly in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 5. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date:02.01.2026 ARB 1 2001 (6) ALD SC. 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 46812/2016 Date:02.01.2026 ARB