Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
B. Meneekala vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 9 July, 2026
Author: D Ramesh
Bench: D Ramesh
1
Date of reserved for orders : 29.04.2026
Date of pronouncement : 09.07.2026
Date of uploading : 13.07.2026
APHC010088282024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3208]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE 9th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 4786/2024
Between:
1. B. MENEEKALA, W/O. V.PARTHA SARADHI,AGE 38
YEARS, OCC EX. DATA ENTRY OPERATOR (OUT
SOURCING), O/O. GALAXY GRANITE PROJECT,
CHEEMAKURTHY, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. R/O.5/100,
RR CENTER-1, MANGAMPETA, KODUR
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINES AND GEOLOGY
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST.
2. A P MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,
REP. ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
(A GOVT, OF ANDHRA PRADESH UNDERTAKING), D.
NO. 294/1D, KANUR VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL,
VIJAYAWADA 521 137 (AP.
2
3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER HRC, O/O. VICE
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE A.P.
MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., (A
GOVT, OF ANDHRA PRADESH UNDERTAKING), D. NO.
294/1D, KANURU VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL,
VIJAYAWADA 521 137 (AP)
4. THE PROJECT OFFICER, A.P. MINERAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD, GALAXY GRANITE PROJECT,
CHIMAKURTHY, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. D LINGA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V R N PRASHANTH
2. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY
WRIT PETITION NO: 28115/2024
Between:
1. TIPPANA SUBRAMANYAM, S/O SANKARAIAH, AGED
44 YEARS, OCC JR. ASST. GR. 2 (OUTSOURCING
BASIS), R/O HNO 5/17, HARIJANAWADA,
REDDIVARIPALLI (VILL AND POST), RAILWAY
KODUR, ANNAMAYYA DIST, AP.- PIN 516101.
2. BATHALA UDAYNAGENDA, S/O NARASIMHESWARA
PRASAD, AGED 38 YEARS, OCC WEIGHBRIDGE
ASSISTANT (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O D. NO 2/11
L,BALIJA STREET, RLY KODUR TOWN, RLY KODUR
MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AP-516101
3
3. GUNTHA SUNEEL KUMAR, S/O JAYANNA, AGED 39
YEARS, OCC JR. ASSISTANT GRADE 2
(OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O D NO 25, SC COLONY,
ALAVALAPADU VILLAGE, VEMPALLI MANDAL,
KADAPA DISTRICT, AP-516350
4. GUNTHA SUJATHA, W/O SUNEEL KUMAR, AGED 37
YEARS, OCC ATTENDER GR.2 (OUTSOURCING
BASIS), R/O D NO 25, SC COLONY, ALAVALAPADU
VILLAGE, VEMPALLI MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT, AP-
516350
5. MURAKUNTI SYAMALA, W/O RAMANA, AGED 40
YEARS, OCC ATTENDER GR.2 (OUTSOURCING
BASIS), R/O D NO 9-155, RAMADASU COLONY,
VEDANTHA PURAM, TIRUPATI RURAL, AP-517507
6. YEDIKA ANIL KUMAR, S/O MAHESWARAIAH, AGED 30
YEARS, OCC JR. ASST. GR. 2 (OUTSOURCING BASIS),
R/O D NO 9/101, MADHAVARM PODU,
HARIJANAWADA, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AP-516101
7. MARRIBOINA MALLESWARAMMA, W/O BRAHMAIAH,
AGED 36 YEARS OCC ATTENDER GR.2
(OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O D NO 3/70,
ANANTHARAJUPETA VILLAGE, R S KODUR MANDAL,
ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AP-516105
8. GANGANAGARI PRASANTH, GANGANAGARI
PRASANTH S/O SUDHAKAR REDDY, AGED 31 YEARS,
OCC WEIGHBRIDGE ASSISTANT (OUTSOURCING
BASIS), R/O D.NO 16-65A JILLELAMADAKA,
OBULAVARIPALLI (VI AND M AND POST),
ANNAMAYYA DIST-516108
9. UPPUTURI SUMA, D/O NAGA RAJA RAO, AGED 29
YEARS, OCC JR, ASST. GR. 2 (OUTSOURCING BASIS),
R/O D NO 6/372/2, VASANTHA NAGAR, RLYKODUR
4
MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT,AP- 516101
10. KANCHERLA VENKATESWARLU, S/O SIVA REDDY,
AGED 39 YEARS, OCC WEIGHBRIDGE ASSISTANT
(OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O D NO 1-19, K C
AGRAHARAM VILLAGE, REDDYVARIPALLI POST,
RLYKODUR MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AP-
516101
11. VADDI KISHORE, S/O SREENIVASULU, AGED 30
YEARS, OCC SUB ASSISTANT (OUTSOURCING
BASIS), R/O D NO 4/159, RAGHAVARAJAPURAM HW,
RLY KODUR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AP-516105
12. MALLU CHANDRASEKHARA REDDY, S/O
SREENIVASULU REDDY, AGED 37 YEARS, OCC JR.
ASST. GR, 2 (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O HNO 7/69
NEAR KALIKADEVI TEMPLE, OBULAVARIPALLI (VI
AND POST AND MD), ANNAMAYYA DIST. PIN-516108
13. KATIKA JEEVAIAH, S/O DAVEEDU, AGED 42 YEARS,
OCC SECURITY GUARD GR. 2 (OUTSOURCING
BASIS), R/O DNO 5-414, RR STREET-5,
MANGAMPETA, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AP-516105
14. MARELLA NEELIMA, D/O RAJESWARI, AGED 31
YEARS, OCC JR. ASST. GR. 2 (OUTSOURCING BASIS),
R/O D NO 10/526,LAXMI PARADISE, WY KODUR
MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AP-516101
15. SANDELLA SUGUNA, W/O MALLIKARJUNA, AGED 31
YEARS, OCC JR. ASST. GR. 2 (OUTSOURCING BASIS),
R/O DNO 10-37, RANGANAYAKULAPETA, RLY KODUR
ANDALAM, ANNAMAYYA DIST-516101
16. RUDDIRALA SUDHAKAR BABU, S/O VENKATA
RAMANA, AGED 28 YEARS, OCC JR. ASST. GR. 2
(OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O RAGHAVARAJUPURAM
(VI AND POST), RLY KODUR MANDALAM,
5
ANNAMAYYA DIST-516105
17. TIPPIRIPATI VIJAY, S/O DEVADAS, AGED- 40 YEARS,
OCC- TEACHER (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O
MANGAMPETA, OBULAVARIPALLI MANADALAM,
ANNAMAYAA DISTRICT, AP-516105
18. CHALLA NAGARAJU, S/O HANUMAIAH, AGED- 27
YEARS, OCC- JR. ASST. GR. 2 (OUTSOURCING
BASIS), R/O RR CENTER -1, RR STREET-3,
MANAGAMPETA, OBULAVARIPALLI MANDALAM,
ANNAMAYA DIST-516105
19. KONDREDDY CHAKRAVARTHI, S/O VENATAIAH,
AGED- 37 YEARS, OCC- SUB ASSISTANT
(OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O D NO- 5-88,
DHARAMMAPURAM STREET, RLY KODURU MANDAL,
ANNAMAYA DISTRICT-516101
20. BEEDA VENKATA SUBBANNA, S/O VENKATA
SUBBAIAH, AGED- 45 YEARS, OCC- ATTENDER GR. 2
(OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O D NO- 9/212B,
RAMNAGAR, KAMALAPURAM YSR KADAPA DISTRICT,
AP-516289
21. GAGGUTUR BABAFAKRUDDIN, S/O MUSTAFA, AGED-
36 YEARS, OCC- ATTENDER GR. 2 (OUTSOURCING
BASIS), R/O D NO- 4.RR. CENTER-2, MANGAMPETA,
ANNAMAYYA DIST, AP-516105
22. GOULA ADILAKSHMI, W/O POUL, AGED- 50 YEARS,
OCC- ATTENDER GR. 2 (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O
D NO- 102, 9TH STREET, RR CENTER-1, KOTHA
MANGAMPET, OBULAVARIPALLI MANDAL,
ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AP-516105
23. PEDDIBOYINA VENKATAKRISHNA, S/O
VENKATARAMANA AGED- 29 YEARS, OCC-
ATTENDER GR. 2 (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O D NO-
6
1/172B-1, GONUMAKULAPALLE VILLAGE,
VEERPANAYUNIPALLI MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT,
AP-516321
24. TIPPANA RAVEESH PRABHU KUMAR, S/O
KRISHNAIAH, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC ATTENDER GR.2
(OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O DNO 5/16A,
HARIJANAWADA, REDDI VARIPALLI, ANNAMAYYA
DISTRICT, AP-516101
25. MADAGALAM VARA PRASAD, S/O NARAIAH, AGED 44
YEARS, OCC MINING MATE (OUTSOURCING BASIS),
R/O RR CENTRE 1 RR STREET -3 MANGAMPETA (V) ,
OBULAVARIPALLI(M), ANNAMAYYA DIST, AP-516105
26. KALLURU PRASANTH, S/O PUSPARAJ, AGED 30
YEARS, OCC DRIVER (OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O
RRL STREET NO.9, MANGAMPETA, OBULAVARIPALLI
MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DIST, AP-516105
27. DAKSHIRAJU SURESH, S/O SRINIVASA RAJU, AGED
28 YEARS, OCC WEIGHBRIDGE ASST.
(OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O DNO 3/40.SIRIGIRACHA
PALLI, GOVINDAM PALLI, OBULAVARIPALLI,
ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AP-PIN 516105
28. SAKUNALA SREENIVASULU, S/O VENKATARAJU,
AGED 41 YEARS, OCC ATTENDER GR. 2
(OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O D NO
2/169.BOMMAVARAM, OBULAVARIPALLI,
ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AP-PIN 516105
29. SHAIK MUBARAK, S/O SHAIK MAHABOOB BASHA,
AGED 24 YEARS, OCC ATTENDER GR 2
(OUTSOURCING BASIS), R/O DNO 10/419-L.M G
ROAD, RAILWAY KODUR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AP-
PIN 516101
7
30. THOTA GOPALAIAH, S/O VENKATACHALAPATHI,
AGED 49 YEARS, OCC WEIGHBRIDGE ASST.( ON
CONTRACT), R/O DNO 4-80A, CHENNARAJUPODU (P
AND VI), OBULAVARIPALLI MANDALAM, AMAMAYYA
DIST-AP-PIN-516108
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, INDUSTRIES AND
COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY
2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH MINERAL DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION LTD, , (A GOVT, OF A. P.
UNDERTAKING), OFFICE D.N0.294/ID, KANURU,
VIJAYAWADA - 521137, N.T.R. DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. THE CHIEF PROJECT OFFICER, A.P. MINERAL
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., (A GOVT, OF
ANDHRA PRADESH UNDERTAKING), MANGAMPET
BARYTES PROJECT, BRANCH OFFICE, MANGAMPET
- 516 106, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH.
4. M/S SINGU SOLUTIONS, IV FLOOR, SRI SAINATH
COMPLEX, 15/1, AMDALPET, GUNTUR 522002 (AP)
5. M/S V SUBBA REDDY, D. NO. 2/193, KAPUPALLI,
MANGAMPET VILLAGE, OBULAVARIPALLI MANDAL,
ANNAMAYYA DIST., AP 516105
6. M/S SAI KRUPA MANPOWER AGENCY, 7/451,
GROUND FLOOR, NEW KRISHNA NAGAR, RLY.
KODUR (TOWN AND MANDAL), ANNAMAYYA DIST.
8
A.P. 516101
7. M/S M PRATAP REDDY, OUTSOURCING
CONTRACTOR, D. NO. 3/18, ALIVELUMANGAPURAM
VILLAGE, CHITVEL MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DIST.
516110
8. M/S A REVATHI, OUTSOURCING CONTRACTOR,
MANGAMPET VILLAGE, OBULAVARIPALLI MANDAL,
ANNAMAYYA DT. 516105
9. M/S P RAVI BABU, OUTSOURCING CONTRACTOR, D.
NO. 19, MANGAMPET VILLGE, OBULAVARIPALLI
MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DT. 516105
10. M/S SRI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA, OUTSOURCING
AGENCY, 7/620-B, SURYA NAGAR, R.S. ROAD, RLY
KODUR TOWN AND MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DT.
516105.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. D LINGA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
2. GP FOR SERVICES I
WRIT PETITION NO: 28948/2024
Between:
1. KORAMUTLA HARIPRASAD, S/O. K.CHINNAIAH, AGED
ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC ATTENDER, R/O.
RAGHAVARAJAPURAM, RAILWAY KODUR,
ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
9
2. K.PRASANNA KUMAR,, S/O. K.VENKATA RAMANA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC WEIGH BRIDGE
ASSISTANT, R/O. REDDYVARIPALLI, H/O. KODUR,
ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
3. N.NARASIMHULU,, S/O. VENKATA RAMANA, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC DATA ENTRY OPERATOR,
R/O. REDDYPALLI VILLAGE, PULLAMPETA MANDAL,
ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
4. S. PRAVEEN KUMAR,, S/O. S. NARASIMHULU, AGED
ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC JUNIOR ASSISTANT GRADE-
LL, R/O. REDDYPALLI VILLAGE, PULLAMPETA
MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
5. M. VIJAYABHASKAR REDDY,, S/O. CHANDRA SEKHAR
REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC ATTENDER,
R/O. MANGAMPETA, KADAPA DISTRICT.
6. G. VARAPUTRA TEJA,, S/O. G. RAJASEKHAR, AGED
ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC JUNIOR ASISTANT GRADE-
LL, R/O. MANGAMPETA,KADAPA DISTRICT.
7. K. SUNEEL,, S/O. K. DAVIDU, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCC DRIVER, R/O. MANGAMPETA, KADAPA
DISTRICT.
8. K. CHENGAL RAYUDU,, S/O. K. CHENGAIAH, AGED
ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC JR. ASSISTANT GRADE-LL,
MADHAVARAMPADU, H/W. KODURU, ANNAMAYYA
DISTRICT.
9. Y. SREEKANTH,, S/O. Y. JAYA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT
31 YEARS, OCC JR. ASSISTANT GRADE-LL,
MADHAVARAMPADU, H/W. KODURU, ANNAMAYYA
DISTRICT.
10. T. SIVASANKARAIAH,, S/O. T.ESWARAIAH, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC JR. ASSTANT GRADE-LL,
10
REDDYVARIPALLE VILLAGE, CHITVEL MANDAL, YSR
KADAPA DISTRICT.
11. D. VIJAY KUMAR,, S/O. D.VENKATARAMANA, AGED
ABOUT 27 YEARS OCC JR. ASSISTANT GRADE-LL
ARUNDHATHIWADA, KODUR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
12. K. MUNIKRISHNA,, S/O. VENKATA MUNI, AGED
ABOUT 24 YEARS OCC ATTENDER, R/O. RR STREET-
4, MANGAMPETA, KADAPA DISTRICT.
13. P. VEERANJANEYA REDDY,, S/O. RAMANJANEYA
REDDY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC DRIVER,
MUTHUKURU VILLAGE, VEMPALLE POST,
ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
14. C.CHARAN KUMAR, S/O. MURALI, AGED ABOUT 31
YEARS, OCC JR. ASSISTANT GRADE-LL,
RAGHAVARAJAPURAM, H.W. KODUR MANDAL,
ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
15. T. NAGABHUSHANAM,, S/O. T. NARASIMHULU, AGED
ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC JR. ASSISTANT GRADE-LL,
OBILI, PENAGALUR MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
16. CHINTHAM SUNIL KUMAR,, S/O. PITCHAIAH, AGED
ABOUT 30 YEARS, KODUR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
17. CHENNAMSETTY VINAY,, S/O. CHALAPATHI, AGED
ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC SUB ASSISTANT,
ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
18. T. NAVEEN KUMAR, S/O. T. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT
29 YEARS, OCC JR. ASSISTANT GRADE-LL, R/O.
D.NO.2-10, REDDEPALLI VILLAGE, PULLAMPETA
MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
19. K. SREERAMULU,, S/O. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29
YEARS, OCC ATTENDER, R/O. HARIJANAWADA,
11
LETA PALLI, KAMALAPURAM,
20. T. VIJAY KUMAR,, S/O. RAMACHANDRAIAH, AGED
ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC JR. ASSISTANT GRADE-LL,
R.R.STREET, 4, MANGAMPETA, OBULAVARIPALLI
MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
21. T. NAVEEN KUMAR REDDY,, S/O. T. VIJAY BHASKAR
REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC MINE MATE,
R/O. APMDC QUARTERS, MANGAMPETA,
ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT
22. C. SUBRAYUDU,, S/O. C. PATTABHI, AGED ABOUT 32
YEARS, RAGHAVARAJAPURAM, KODURU MANDAL,
ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
23. M. SUKUMAR REDDY,, S/O. M. RAMASUBBA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 35 OCC JUNIOR ASSISTANT, GRADE-
LL, MANGAPALLI, CHITVEL MANDAL,
24. B. MADHU SUDHAN,, S/O. SUBBOJI, AGED ABOUT 31
YEARS, OCC JUNIOR ASSISTANT GRADE-LL, R/O.
CHOWDESWARI NAGAR, 1ST CROSS,
MEERUGATUVARIPALLI, MADANAPALLI, ANNAMAYYA
DISTRICT.
25. D.V.RAMANA REDDY,, S/O. D. SIVA REDDY, AGED
ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. 1 -78-A,
RAGHAVARAJAPURAM, RAILWAY KODUR,
ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES AND
COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, VELGAPUDI, GUNTUR
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
12
2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH MINERAL
DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION LTD, (A GOVT, OF A.P.
UNDERTAKING), OFFICE D.NO.294/1D,KANURU,
VIJAYAWADA- 521 137, N.T.R DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
3. THE CHIEF PROJECT OFFICER, A.P. MINERAL
DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION LTD., (A GOVT, OF
ANDHRA PRADESH UNDERTAKING),MANGAMPET
BARYTES PROJECT, BRANCH OFFICE, MANGAMPET -
516 106, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
4. THE CHIEF PROJECT OFFICER, A.P. MINERAL
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD (A GOVT, OF
ANDHRA PRADESH UNDERTAKING), GALAXY
GRANITE PROJECT, BRANCH OFFICE, CHIMAKURTHY,
ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
5. M/S SINGU SOLUTIONS, IV FLOOR, SRI SAINATH
COMPLEX, 15/1, ARNDALPET, GUNTUR - 522 002
6. M/S SAI KRUPA MANPOWER AGENCY, 7/451, GROUND
FLOOR, NEW KRISHNA NAGAR, RLY. KODUR
(TOWN AND MANDAL), ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, A.P.
516 101. RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6 IMPLEADED AS
PER COURT ORDER DATED 17.12.2024 VIDE I.A.NO.2
OF 2024 IN WP NO.28948 OF 2024
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. K RAGHU VEER
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
2. GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE
13
WRIT PETITION NO: 33880/2025
Between:
1. PANA NANI, S/O PANA CHINNA, AGED 28 YEARS,
OCC JUNIORASST.GR.IL, R/O H NO 40-17-146,
PAKEERGUDEM, LABBIPET VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA
DIST, AP.- PIN 520010. (SI.NO. 23 IN THE LIST) 2.
2. BHAKTULA INDIRA, W/O B. SIVA NAGESWARA RAO,
AGED 50 YEARS, OCC ATTENDER (OS), R/O D. NO.
40-23-7, MANNAM SUBBAIAH STREET PAKEER
GUDEM, LABBIPETA POST, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA
DIST., AP 520010. (SI.NO.35 IN THE LIST) 3.
3. LAKSHMIGARI SUDARSHAN, S/O GANGULAIAH AGED
26 YEARS, OCC OFFICE ASSISTANT, R/O H. NO.
7/329-30, NEW KRISHNA NAGAR RAILWAY KODURU,
CUDAPPAH AP 516101 (SI.NO.37 IN THE LIST)
4. UMMADI VISWANTH REDDY, S/O UMMADI NARAYANA
REDDY, AGED 38 YEARS, OCC SR. ASSISTANT, R/O
H. NO. 13/4, KITCHAMAMBAPURAM, MANDHARAM,
RAJAMPET, MANNUR, CUDDAPAH AP 516126 (SI.NO.
39 IN THE LIST)
5. GUGGULOTHU PRASHANTHI, W/O IRMELU NAIK
AGED 33 YEARS, OCC ATTENDER, R/O 1-70, SUGALI
COLONY, TADIGADAPA, KRISHNA DIST, AP 521137
(SI.NO. 40 IN THE LIST)
6. E. VAMSI KRISHNA, S/O SRINIVASA RAO AGED29
YEARS, OCC ATTENDER GR. II R/O H. NO. 13-222,
RAJENDRANAGAR, VUYYURU, KRISHNA DIST. AP
521165 (SI.NO.41 IN THE LIST) 7.
7. POLANNAGARI HEMANTH KUMAR,, S/O VENKATA
RAMANA, AGED 29 YEARS, OCC JR. ASSISTANT
GRADE II, R/O H. NO. 10-97-2, RANGANAYUKULA
14
PETA, RAILWAY KODUR, CUDDAPAH, AP -516101
(SI.NO. 48 IN THE LIST) 8.
8. BOGGULA RAMANJENULU, S/O BOGGULA
SRIRAMULU AGED 34 YEARS, OCCSECURITY GUARD
GR.LL, R/O MANGAMPETA, OBULAVARIPALLI,
CUDDPAH,AP 516108 (SI.NO.65 IN THE LIST) 9.
9. DASARI CHANGALRAYULU,, S/O DASARI SUBBULAIAH
AGE 43 YEARS OCC MINE MATE, R/O
HARIJANAWADA, RAGHAVARAJAPURAM, RAILWAY
KODUR, CUDDAPAH AP 516105 (SI.NO. 95IN THE
LIST)
10. PIDUGU JESSI, S/O SUNDARAM AGED 54 YEARS,
OCCSECURITY GUARD GR. II R/O GANDHI NAGAR,
RAILWAY KODUR, KODUR, CUDDAPAH 516101.
(SI.NO. 66 IN THE LIST
11. TALARI RAMU, S/O TALARI SURYANARAYANA, AGED
30 YEARS, OCCJR. ASST. GR. II R/O D RR STREET,
MANGAMPET, OBULAVARIPALLI MANGAMPET,
CUDDAPAH AP 516105 (SI.NO. 97 IN THE LIST) 12.
12. PIKKILI HEMANTH KUMAR, S/O VENKATESWARIU,
AGED 26 YEARS, OCC JR. ASSTT. GR. II, R/O P.K.
PLLI, PODILI KONDA PALLE, PRAKASAM DIST, AP
523357 (SI.NO.123 IN THE LIST) 13.
13. K. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY, S/O K. RAMACHANDRA
REDDY AGE 41 YEARS, OCC JR. ASST. GR. II, R/O 2-
90-A, ANIMELA, VTC ANIMELA, PO ANIMELA, SUB
DIST. VEERAPUNAYUNIPALLE DT. CUDAPPAH, AP
516 321 (SI.NO. 49 IN THE LIST)
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
15
1. THE STATE OF AP, INDUSTRIES COMMERCE
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, REP.
BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY. 2.
2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH MINERAL DEVELOPMENT,
CORPORATION LTD., (A GOVT, OF A. P.
UNDERTAKING), OFFICED.NO.294/ID, KANURU,
VIJAYAWADA - 521137 N.T.R. DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3
3. THE CHIEF PROJECT OFFICER, . A.P. MINERAL
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (A GOVT, OF
ANDHRA PRADESH UNDERTAKING), MANGAMPET
BARYTES PROJECT, BRANCH OFFICE, MANGAMPET -
516 106, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
4.
4. M/S SINGU SOLUTIONS, IV FLOOR, SRI SAINATH
COMPLEX, 15/1, ARNDALPET, GUNTUR 522002 (AP) 5.
5. M/S M PRATAP REDDY, OUTSOURCING CONTRACTOR
D. NO. 3/18, ALIVELUNNANGAPURAM VILLAGE,
CHITVEL MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DIST. 516110 6.
6. M/S REDDY ENTERPRISES, 32-26-16/1, VIJAYALAKSHMI
NIVAS, MACHAVARANNDOWN, BESIDE VANI PUBLIC
SCHOOL ELURU ROAD, VIJAYAWADA 520 004
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. D LINGA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES I
16
2. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
The Court made the following:
17
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION Nos.4786, 28115 & 28948 of 2024 and
33880 of 2025
COMMON ORDER:
W.P.No.4786 of 2024 is filed seeking the following relief:
“….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in
the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS to declare the action of the
respondents in discontinuing the petitioner along with others
vide termination Office Order in APMDC/HRD/08/2021/576, dt
30.6.2021 and engaging/reengaging other similarly situated
persons who were terminated along with petitioner vide Proc.
APMDC/HRD/OS/2021/882, dt 29.7.2021 without
engaging/reengaging the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary,
discriminatory, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 and
16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to various
judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court on this subject by
setting aside the impugned termination order dt 30.6.2021 in
so far as petitioner is concerned and consequently direct the
respondents to engage/reengage and continue the petitioner
work as Data Entry Operator at Chimakurthy or Mangampeta
at Galaxy Granite Project of A.P.Mineral Development
Corporation Limited, as was done in case similarly situated
terminated employees namely 1. Tippanna Subramanyam,2.
Chowdavaram Subbarayudu, 3. Shodavaram Praveen Kumar
and 4. Kairi Chapgalrayudu vide APMDC/HRD/OS/2021/882,
dt 29.7.2021 with all consequential benefits ….”
18
W.P.No.28115 of 2024 is filed seeking the following relief:
“….to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more
particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus and set
aside the proceedings issued the respondents to discontinue
the services of the petitioners herein from 18.11.2024 and
22.11.2024 onwards vide letters (1) No. APMDC/Pr. and
C/LOA/OS/2024/945 dated 18.11.2024, (2) No. APMDC/M
Pet/ HRD/OS/Stoppage of Service/1648/2024-25 dated
18.11.2024, (3) No. APMDC/M Pet/ HRD/OS/Stoppage of
Service/ 1679/ 2024-25 dated 21.11.2024, (4) No. APMDC/M
Pet/ HRD/OS/ Stoppage of Service / 1678/2024-25 dated
21.11.2024 (5) No. APMDC/ M Pet/ HRD/ OS/ Stoppage of
Service/1647/2024-25 dated 18.11.2024 (6) No. APMDC/ M
Pet/ HRD/OS/Stoppage of Service/1649/2024-25 dated
18.11.2024, (7) No. APMDC/M Pet/HRD/OS/Stoppage of
Service/1675/2024-25 dated 21.11.2024 and (8) No.
APMDC/M Pet/HRD/OS/Stoppage of Service/ 1676/ 2024-25
dated 21.11.2024, without any valid reasons as being
arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21
of the Constitution of India and human rights besides being
violative of principles of rule of law and opposed to all
principles of canons of norms of law and justice and contrary
to the principles of law laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court
and set aside the same and direct the respondents to continue
the engagement of the petitioners by the respondent
Corporation with all existing attendant and consequential
benefits ….”
19
W.P.No.28948 of 2024 is filed seeking the following relief:
“….to issue an order, direction, writ, more particularly Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents to
discontinue the services of the petitioners herein from
18.11.2024 and 22.11.2024 onwards vide letters (1)
O.O.No.APMDC /HRD /TCOP /2024 /946, dated
18.11.2024, dated 18.11.2024,(2) No.APMDC /Pr. and C
/LOA /OS /2024 /945, dated 18.11.2024, (2) No.APMDC
/Mpet /HRD /OS /Stoppage of Service /1648 /2024- 25,
dated 18.11.2024, (3) No.APMDC /M pet /HRD /OS
/Stoppage of Service /1679 /2024-25,dated21.11.2024(4)
No.APMDC /Pr. /LO / / /OS /2024 /1037,dated
20.11.2024, without any valid reasons as being arbitrary,
illegal, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India and human rights besides being violative
of principles of rule of law and opposed to all principles of
cannons of norms of law and justice and contrary to the
principles of law laid down by the Honble Apex Court and set
aside the same and direct the respondents to continue the
service of the petitioners by the respondent Corporation with
all existing attendant and consequential benefits ….”
W.P.No.33880 of 2025 is filed seeking the following relief:
“….to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one
in the nature of a Writ of MANDAMUS, declaring the action of
the respondents to discontinue the services of the petitioners
herein from 18.11.2024 and 22.11.2024 onwards vide letters
No. No. (1)APMDC/PrC/LOA/OS/2024/945 dated 18.11.2024,
20(2) APMDC/Pr.C/ LOA/ OS/2024/1037 dated 20.11.2024,
(3)APMDC/Pr. C/ LOA/ OS/2024/1039 dated 20.11.2024 and
(4) APMDC/MPet/HRD/OS/Stoppag e of Service/ 167/2024-
25 dated 21.11.2024, without any valid reasons as being
arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21
of the Constitution of India and human rights besides being
violative of principles of rule of law and opposed to all
principles of canons of norms of law and justice and contrary
to the principles of law laid down by the Honble Apex Court
and set aside the same and direct the respondents to continue
the engagement of the petitioners by the respondent
Corporation with all existing attendant and consequential
benefits ….”
2. Heard Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel
assisted by Sri K.Raghu Veer and Sri D.Linga Rao, learned
counsels for the petitioners and learned Advocate General
appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
3. As the issue involved in all the writ petitions is one and the
same, this Court heard them jointly, and they are being disposed
of by this common order, taking W.P.No.28948 of 2024 as a
leading case.
4. All the petitioners are outsourced employees engaged by
the 2nd respondent – Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development
Corporation Limited (for short, „the Corporation‟) through the
21
outsourced agencies for carrying out regular and perennial nature
of duties in its head office and different sites/projects. Some of
the petitioners are under the category of land losers/house loss
and dependent family members of the deceased employees of
the 2nd respondent-Corporation. Majority of the petitioners have
been working in the 2nd respondent-Corporation for a period
exceeding four years and 240 days in each calendar year. By
virtue of settlement arrived at before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner at Hyderabad under Section 12(3) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, on 04.02.2022, the 2nd respondent-
Corporation has extended equal pay for equal work to the
outsourced personnel working in the head office and other
branches along with the Mangampet Barytes Project,
Chimakurthy Black Galaxy Granite Project etc., and equivalent
designations applicable for regular employees were also
extended vide 2nd respondent-Corporation‟s office proceedings
dated 30.01.2023. As the petitioners recruited on outsourcing
basis from the year 2019, they have been directed to be
discontinued from 18.11.2024 and 22.11.2024 onwards without
any valid reasons. Hence, the same is arbitrary, illegal and
violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
22
5. As the 2nd respondent-Corporation has required the
manpower on outsourcing basis for different nature of jobs and
works, it has engaged 772 persons. Engagement of personnel
either directly or on outsourcing basis and extracting work on year
to year basis in the head office, site offices and project sites
indicates the perennial nature of work. New appointments on
outsourcing and contract basis made during the year 2019
onwards by recruiting 279 persons. Out of which, the 2nd
respondent-Corporation sought to selectively discontinue the
services of 123 persons, including the petitioners. Hence, the
above action of the 2nd respondent is selective discrimination. In
fact, as the 2nd respondent-Corporation sought to discontinue and
disengage the services of some persons, they filed
W.P.No.30648 of 2023, who were working at Mangampet Barytes
Project, while continuing the other similarly situated persons, who
were appointed subsequently and denial of continuation of
services of the petitioners without any valid reason or justification,
this Court vide order dated 29.11.2023 stayed the operation of
the proceedings.
6. It is further stated that discontinuation or dispensing with
the services of the petitioners is not sustainable and that the
23
petitioners have rendered considerable services to the 2nd
respondent-Corporation, which extends beyond 240 days in each
calendar year. They have gained experience by virtue of their
long standing nature. The work and the engagement of the
petitioners and others are perennial in nature and they are
discharging the duties on par with the regular employees and
there are no allegations against the petitioners. Hence,
discontinuation of the petitioners without any valid reason,
effecting their livelihood, is an unfair labour practice. The 2nd
respondent, being a Corporation under the Government, should
be treated as State in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India and is duty bound to follow Part-III of the Constitution of
India and particularly to comply with the provisions of Articles 14,
16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the present writ
petitions are filed questioning the proceedings dated 18.11.2024
of the 2nd respondent-Corporation and the consequential
proceedings dated 21.11.2024 of the 4th respondent. Initially, the
writ petitions were filed without impleading the contractual
agencies i.e., respondent Nos.5 and 6 and subsequently, as per
the directions of this Court dated 17.12.2024 they were
impleaded as party respondents.
24
7. Reply to the above averments, the 2nd respondent has filed
its counter on 12.12.2024. The writ petitions were filed assailing
the discontinuation of services of the petitioners, who are
outsourced employees, hired through outsourcing agencies and
seeking to continue them in service as they are rendering service
for more than 240 days in a year. The claim of the petitioners is
baseless.
8. The Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation
(APMDC) was incorporated on 24.02.1961 and engaged in
commercial exploitation of various minerals and plays a proactive
role in exploitation of valuable mineral resources and in the
development of mining infrastructure in the State of Andhra
Pradesh. The cadre strength of the 2nd respondent-Corporation is
531, while the total manpower engaged as on 01.05.2024 is
1414. The manpower budget has increased abundantly and
overheads have been loaded heavily compared to the capacity of
workings, revenue and other factors. Hence, 2nd respondent-
Corporation has taken a policy decision to downsize and
restructure the Corporation. The 2nd respondent-Corporation has
discontinued the manpower, who are in excess and such
25
manpower neither recruited in a proper manner of recruitment nor
against any vacancy of the position in the Corporation.
9. The specific case of the 2nd respondent-Corporation is that
the removal of the employees is not with an intention to replace
them with different persons, but only to downsize and restructure
the Corporation. The method applied by the 2nd respondent-
Corporation for this purpose is „last come first go‟ and therefore,
the petitioners cannot plead any bias. The petitioners are not
being replaced, but are only discontinued, as the 2nd respondent-
Corporation does not require their services any longer. Further,
the petitioners cannot plead any right over their employment. The
petitioners ought to demonstrate how the writ petition is
maintainable in the absence of violation of any right. Most of the
outsourcing personnel are not appointed against approved cadre
strength or vide recruitment process. The positions of
outsourcing personnel are not perennial in nature. They worked
for more than four years does not hold any significance, as they
are outsourced employees, who cannot claim any vested right.
Further, the claim of the petitioners that some of them are land
losers and family members of the deceased employees of the 2nd
respondent-Corporation is false. All the petitioners have joined
26
without any process of recruitment or against approved vacancy
and in particular on outsourcing basis which does not carry any
relationship between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent. As
the 2nd respondent-Corporation has taken a policy decision for
downsizing and restructuring the manpower strength of the
Corporation, it has been working out the requirement of the exact
manpower in all the working locations. Recent years about 300+
employees have been engaged without requirement or without
any clear job description and most of them are idle and do not
have any job to operate. However, the 2nd respondent-
Corporation has continued to pay them for all these years without
any constructive work. As the 2nd respondent-Corporation is
established under the Companies Act, 1956, it is purely a
commercial organization and cannot unnecessarily waste its
resources on unproductive and excess employment.
10. Further, the 2nd respondent has filed an additional counter
affidavit on 22.01.2025. The 2nd respondent-Corporation is duly
registered under Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation
and Abolition) Act, 1970 (Act 37 of 1970) and all the outsourcing
agencies with which the 2nd respondent-Corporation has duly
entered into contracts for the engagement of workman or all the
27
licensed contractors under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act.
In fact, in the light of the legal disputes that are being raised
against termination/discontinuation, in order to have a detailed
study on the excess manpower, the 2nd respondent-Corporation
has engaged the services of Centre for Organization and
Development, Hyderabad for the man power study of APMDC on
13.12.2024. Further, the contention of reengagement of some of
the other outsourced employees were replied stating that the 2nd
respondent-Corporation has received instructions from Ministry of
Mines, Government of Andhra Pradesh and CMO to deploy 6
personnel and also received instructions from the Government to
deploy 2 personnel to meet the works at Peshi of Principal
Secretary to Government. Therefore, the 2nd respondent-
Corporation has engaged the said personnel and as such, they
are not working for the Corporation and their services are
subjected to the time of the office of the Minister in power and
even the expenditure towards their monthly wages will be posted
to the Government for reimbursement in due course of time.
Accordingly, they have also given particulars of the persons those
who are disengaged and subsequently engaged only at the
request of Hon‟ble Minister and the Principal Secretary to
28
Government and they were reengaged and placed at the disposal
of Hon‟ble Minister and Principal Secretary‟s Peshi. Further, they
have also filed the particulars of the persons those who are
engaged under rehabilitation and resettlement scheme and they
are being continued without any disturbance. Finally, they have
mainly relied on the maintainability of the writ petition in respect of
the claim of outsourced employees and there is no master and
servant relationship between the State and the outsourced
employees as all the petitioners were engaged through
contractors i.e., newly impleaded respondent Nos.5 and 6.
11. Based on the above pleadings, Sri K.G.Krishna Murthy,
learned Senior Counsel leading the batch has made his
submissions that there is discrimination in discharging/terminating
the services of the petitioners without any valid ground. As all the
petitioners were appointed in 2019 and 2021 and they have
completed more than four years, they are entitled for continuation
in the said post. When there are no allegations against the
petitioners and they are working with utmost satisfaction of the 2nd
respondent-Corporation, their services cannot be disengaged.
Further, he also placed reliance on engagement of some other
personnel who were appointed subsequent to the petitioners and
29
their services are being continued without considering the case of
the petitioners which is nothing but selective discrimination.
Though the petitioners were appointed through respondent Nos.5
and 6 agencies, the fact remains that their salaries were being
paid through the funds of the 2nd respondent-Corporation and
also working for the benefit of the Corporation. Hence, there is
an existence of master and servant relationship between the
petitioners and the 2nd respondent as the petitioners are working
for the benefit of the Corporation and also under the instructions
of the authorities of the Corporation. Hence, there is a direct
relationship of master and servant. Hence, the writ petitions are
maintainable. In fact, on earlier occasion as some of the persons
were terminated, they have approached this Court by filing
W.P.No.30648 of 2023. As per the directions of this Court in the
above referred orders, the services of the petitioners therein were
continued. Hence, the present petitioners are also entitled for the
same relief.
12. Reply to the said contentions, learned Advocate General
appearing on behalf of the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development
Corporation has made his submissions based on the averments
made in the counter. He has taken an objection with regard to
30
maintainability of the writ petitions. He submitted that there is no
irregularity or illegality in dispensing with the services of the
petitioners. In fact, the cadre strength of the 2nd respondent-
Corporation is about 531 against that there is a total manpower
engaged as on 01.05.2024 is 1414. The same is beyond the
requirement of the Corporation. When that being the factual
situation, the Corporation has requested the Centre for
Organisation and Development, Hyderabad for manpower study
of APMDC. In fact, they have reviewed the entire situation and
decided to downsize the manpower. Accordingly, they have
decided to disengage the services of 123 persons. The same is
in accordance with policy decision. In fact, while downsizing the
manpower, the 2nd respondent-Corporation has strictly followed
the method of „last come first go‟. Though there are vague
allegations made by the petitioners, the respondents have strictly
followed the said principle while disengaging. No doubt, as
contended by the petitioners, the 2nd respondent-Corporation has
reengaged only eight persons i.e., 2 Drivers, 2 Senior Assistants,
2 Office Subordinates and 1 DPO and 1 AM. The said
engagements are at the request of Hon‟ble Minister, CMO and
Principal Secretary‟s Peshi. Accordingly, they were engaged and
31
sent to the respective places at their request. The said
engagement is purely co-terminus. Further, the expenditure
towards their monthly salaries will be reimbursed from the
concerned Secretariat. In the said circumstances, the petitioners
cannot said that the 2nd respondent-Corporation has not followed
„last come first go‟ principle. Even according to the admitted
facts, based on the affidavit as well as the counter, it clearly
discloses that all the petitioners were engaged and working
against the non-existing cadre strength.
13. Further, he mainly contended that all the petitioners were
engaged by respondent Nos.5 and 6 agencies. In fact, the 2nd
respondent-Corporation has entered into a specific agreement
with respondent Nos.5 and 6 and as the same was placed as a
part of record along with the counter. He also contended that the
2nd respondent has not issued any termination/ disengagement
orders, which clearly established by the impugned proceedings
dated 18.11.2024, requesting all the Chief Project Officers,
Mangampet Barytes Project, Mangampet to stop the services of
the personnel and submit compliance report. Further, the
consequential orders also clearly disclose that the Managing
Director and also Chief Executive Officers were requested the
32
concerned contracting agencies to stop the services of the
personnel. Hence, there are no direct orders dispensing with the
services of the petitioners by the 2nd respondent or the 4th
respondent. That itself clearly indicates that there is no direct
relationship of employer and employee/master and servant
relationship between respondent Nos.2 and 4 and the petitioners.
Hence, the petitioners are not able to place any material to show
that there is a direct master and servant relationship between
respondent Nos.2 and 4 and the petitioners.
14. In fact, the learned Advocate General has placed reliance
on the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A.No.310 of 2024 and batch, wherein the facts are identical
and similar. Even in the said batch the services of the petitioners
were engaged by the contractor and working under the
APEPDCL as shift operators. In fact, in the said batch of writ
appeals, the very contention of the petitioners was that as some
of the petitioners were disengaged, they approached this Court
and this Court has given directions to continue their services.
Hence, all the petitioners in the above said batch were also
entitled for the same relief. In the said batch the point for
consideration is that whether is there any relationship of employer
33
and employee between the petitioners and the writ appellants and
whether non-regularization of their services by the writ appellants
is unfair labour practice? In the said batch of writ appeals, the
Division Bench has considered the aspect based on the
observations made by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in State of
Karnataka v. Umadevi1, State of Karnataka v. M.L.Kesari2 and
R.K.Panda v. Steel Authority of India3.
15. No doubt, in Umadevi‟s case (supra 1), the Hon‟ble Apex
Court has held that the initial appointment must be done by the
competent authority and they must be working against a
sanctioned post.
16. In the instant case, admittedly, no process of selection was
undertaken and all the petitioners were appointed against non-
existing vacancies and contrary to the cadre strength.
17. In M.L.Kesari‟s case (supra 2), the Hon‟ble Apex Court has
observed that the State Government or its instrumentality should
have employed the employee and continued him in service
voluntarily and continuously without any assistance of Court
1
(2006) 4 SCC 1
2
(2010) 9 SCC 247
3
1994 (5) SCC 304
34
orders. Where the appointments are not made or continued
against a non-sanctioned post, the said appointment should be
treated as illegal appointments and where the appointments are
made in a sanctioned post without undergoing the process of
selection, the said appointments are to be treated as irregular.
18. In R.K.Panda‟s case (supra 3), the Hon‟ble Apex Court
held as under:
“7. It is true that with the passage of time and purely with a
view to safeguard the interests of workers, many principal
employers while renewing the contracts have been insisting
that the contractor or the new contractor retains the old
employees. In fact such a condition is incorporated in the
contract itself. However, such a clause in the contract which is
benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the continuance
of the source of livelihood of the contract labour cannot by
itself give rise to a right to regularisation in the employment of
the principal employer. Whether the contract labourers have
become the employees of the principal employer in
course of time and whether the engagement and
employment of labourers through a contractor is a mere
camouflage and a smokescreen, as has been urged in this
case, is a question of fact and has to be established by
the contract labourers on the basis of the requisite
material. It is not possible for the High Court or this Court,
while exercising writ jurisdiction or jurisdiction under
Article 136 to decide such questions, only on the basis of
35the affidavits. It need not be pointed out that in all such
cases, the labourers are initially employed and engaged by the
contractors. As such at what point of time a direct link is
established between the contract labourers and the
principal employer, eliminating the contractor from the
scene, is a matter which has to be established on material
produced before the court. Normally, the Labour Court
and the Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes
Act are the competent fora to adjudicate such disputes on
the basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced
before them.”
19. By referring the above observations of the Hon‟ble Apex
Court, finally, the Division Bench at paragraph Nos.53, 55, 58 and
59 held as under:
“53. In our view, the question whether there is relationship of
employer and employee between the writ appellant and the
writ petitioners is a question of fact and for applying the
judgment in the case of Suresh (supra), there should be a
specific finding of said fact, may be after lifting of veil or
piercing the veil. To record the finding, the material would be
required, the evidence would be required and it will also have
to be seen, whether the writ appellant was a licenced principal
employer under the Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, and the contractor(s), as named in the writ
petitions, was a licenced contractor, as also whether there was
any genuine contract system prevailing at the relevant point of
time or not. Whether the contract labourers became
employees of the principal employer in course of time and
36whether the engagement and employment through contractor
was a mere camouflage and required to be established on the
basis of requisite material.
55. There is also nothing to show that in spite of there being
sanctioned posts, the services of the writ petitioners were not
being regularized or that the writ petitioners were engaged
against the sanctioned posts though it was the writ petitioners‟
case that they were engaged against sanctioned posts, but the
same was denied by the writ appellant. So, if there were no
sanctioned posts for regularization, non-regularization would
not amount to unfair trade practice.
58. So far as the maintainability of the writ petition is
concerned when the determination of the lis, is dependent on
question of facts, being involved, as in the present case,
whether there was relationship of employer and employee
between the writ petitioners and the writ appellants, on which
there was no finding by Industrial Court or Labour Court as
was the case of Suresh (supra) which had arisen from
adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal, in our view, the writ
petition would not be the appropriate remedy to be
approached directly and particularly when the Labour Court /
Industrial Tribunal have jurisdiction to consider and grant such
relief, on determination of relevant factual aspects based on
material/evidence before those Courts/Tribunals.
59. In view of the aforesaid discussion, our conclusions are:
(i) As per both the judgments in Suresh (supra) or/and
Umadevi (supra), there must be relationship of employer
and employee. In Umadevi (supra), the appointment was
37by employer, might have been irregular and in Suresh
(supra) there was a finding by the Industrial Tribunal that
there was relationship of employer and employee between
the workmen and based on such finding the High Court had
decided the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. In the present case, any such finding by the
Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal is lacking.
(ii) In the absence of any finding on the aspect of the
relationship of the employer and employee between the
writ appellants and the writ petitioners, the direction for
regularization is unsustainable.
(iii) The question whether there is relationship of employer
and employee between the writ appellants and the writ
petitioners is a question of fact. To record the finding, the
material would be required. The evidence would be
required. It will also have to be seen whether the writ
appellant is a licenced principal employer and the
contractor, as named in the writ petitions, was a licenced
contractor. It will also have to be seen whether there was
any genuine contract system prevailing at the relevant
point of time or not, and whether the contract labourers
became employees of the principal employer in course of
time and whether the engagement and employment
through contractor was a mere camouflage. All this is
required to be established on the basis of requisite
material, may be after lifting of veil or piercing the veil.
(vii) The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is not the appropriate remedy to be approached
directly in such matters seeking regularization, and
38particularly, when the Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal
have got the jurisdiction to consider such aspect and on
the determination of the relevant factual aspects based
on material they have jurisdiction to pass appropriate
orders for regularization.”
20. Considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that the
facts are not much in dispute. Though the learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended
that dispensing/terminating the services of the petitioners was
without having any valid reasons and also alleged selective
discrimination, he was unable to place any material on record in
support of the plea of selective discrimination. Though additional
material papers filed by the petitioners contending that the
services of certain persons, who were engaged subsequent to
them, were reengaged, the said contention was replied with
supporting evidence by the 2nd respondent in its additional
counter affidavit. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the
opinion that there was no selective discrimination and the
engagement of the subsequent appointees was based on the
requests made by the Minister and the CMO which was purely
co-terminus in nature based on administrative necessities.
Hence, the same cannot be construed as selective discrimination.
39
21. As far as the issue of maintainability of the writ petitions
raised by the learned Advocate General is well considered by the
Division Bench in an identical matter. In fact in R.K.Panda‟s case
(supra 3) in the above referred paragraph, the Hon‟ble Apex
Court clearly held that whether the contract labourers have
become the employees of the principal employer in course of time
and whether the engagement and employment of labourers
through a contractor is a mere camouflage and a smokescreen,
are questions of fact. But, the question of fact has to be
established by the contract labourers on the basis of the requisite
material. It is not possible for the High Court to decide such
questions only on the basis of the affidavits. It was clearly held
that direct link is established between the contract labourers and
the principal employer, eliminating the contractor. Normally, the
Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial
Disputes Act are the competent for adjudication. Finally, the
Division Bench, after taking into consideration all the relevant law,
held that determination of the lis is dependent on question of
facts, being involved, in the case, particularly with regard to
relationship of employer and employee between the petitioners
and the respondents. Consequently, it was held that a writ
40
petition would not be an appropriate remedy to be approached
directly.
22. In fact, this Court, following the above referred judgment,
has also disposed of an identical matter in W.P.No.4351 of 2026
holding that the shift operators working under the contractor do
not have any direct employer and employee relationship with the
Corporation.
23. Considering the observations made by the Hon‟ble Apex
Court in the above referred judgment and considering the facts
and law, this Court is of the opinion that admittedly, all the
petitioners were appointed against the non-existing posts and the
2nd respondent-Corporation being a commercial entity has taken
a decision to resize their structure and disengage the employees
working on contract basis. In view of the observations made by
the Hon‟ble Apex Court and also the Division Bench in the above
referred judgments, the petitioners failed to produce any material
to substantiate or establish the direct nexus with respondent
Nos.2 and 4. As the petitioners were engaged by the contractor
and the impugned orders were also given directing the contractor
to disengage the services of the petitioners, this Court is of the
41
opinion that there is no direct relationship of employer and
employee. Hence, it holds that the writ petitions are not
maintainable. The only remedy available to the petitioners is to
approach the concerned Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court to
determine the relevant questions of fact on the basis of the
material and evidence produced before it.
24. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed as not
maintainable. The interim order granted on 02.12.2024 in
W.P.No.28115 of 2024 stands vacated. There shall be no order
as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_______________________
JUSTICE D.RAMESH
Date: 09.07.2026
Ivd
Whether the order is:
Speaking No Reasoned Yes
Reportable No Non-reportable Yes
42
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
WRIT PETITION Nos.4786, 28115 & 28948 of 2024 and
33880 of 2025
Dated: 09.07.2026
Ivd
