: ORDER :

The above writ petition is filed to declare the proceedings of respondent No.3 vide Lr.No.EE/O/RMV/AEE(P)/E.No./D.No.330/2024, dated 20.04.2024 (Ex.P1) and consequential proceedings of respondent No.4 dated 20.04.2024, whereby the authorities dispensed with the service of the petitioner as shift operator, as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Sri K.Dharma Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms.K.Aishwarya, learned Junior Standing Counsel appeared for respondents 1 to 3. Notice of respondent No.4 is dispensed with since no orders are passed against the right and interest of respondent No.4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as Shift Operator at 33/11KV Subbarao Nagara Sub-Station, Rajahmundry. He also would submit that the Executive Engineer addressed a letter to respondent No.4 Contractor (Ex.P1). Based upon the said letter, the service of the petitioner was dispensed with (Ex.P3).

4. Learned Junior Standing Counsel would submit that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3. She also would submit that there is no employee and employer relationship between the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3. She also would submit that the writ petition itself is not maintainable. She placed reliance upon the order of Division Bench dated 14.07.2023 in W.A.No.467 of 2023.

5. As seen from the material papers on record, the petitioner was engaged through a contractor – respondent No.4 at 33/11KV Subbarao Nagara Sub- Station, Rajahmundry. The contractor terminated the service of the petitioner. The Division Bench in W.A.No.467 of 2023, dated 14.07.2023, observed that simply because the payment is made out of the escrow account, the relationship of employer and employee between the appellant and the official respondents is not established. Eventually, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal because the writ petition was not maintainable. However, the Division Bench observed that the appellant is at liberty to take recourse to such other remedy as may be open under law.

6. In the case at hand, the petitioner was engaged through respondent No.4 and respondent No.4 terminated the service of the petitioner. There is no Privity of Contract and employer and employee relationship. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Wirt Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. This order will not preclude the petitioner from taking recourse to such other remedy as may be open under law. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 01.10.2024 TVN

207 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.21953 OF 2024 Date : 01.10.2024 TVN