The Court made the following order:-

The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned action of the respondents particularly the respondent no’s 4 to 6 orally terminating the petitioners as Shift Operators without issuing any notice and replacing them with respondents 9 to 12 in the place of petitioners as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discrimination, contrary to orders of this Hon’ble Court and violation Principles of Natural Justice apart from violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioners as Shift Operators and pass…”

2. Heard Ms. V.Santhi Sree representing Ms. R.Annapoorna, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are the contract employee engaged as a Shift Operator at Chejerla, Kandlakunta and Chakrayapeta Sub-Stations respectively, under the control of respondent Nos.7 and 8, the contractor. While so, in the month of June, 2025, the petitioners were informed that they need not attend the work as they were orally terminated from the post of Shift Operator without issuing any orders or any show-cause notice. It is further submitted that the respondent Nos.9 to 12 were appointed on contract/outsourcing basis in the place of writ petitioners. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

4. During hearing, learned Standing Counsel for APEPDCL appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6, submitted that there is no relationship of employer and employee between respondent Nos.1 to 6 and the petitioners. Since the petitioners were engaged by the contractor, respondent No.7 and 8, 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 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.

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 the vendor bill for payment; a copy of attendance sheet shall be mailed to the vendor to raise the bill accordingly