*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO +W.P. No.20460 OF 2022 % 03-07-2025 # J. Kishan and others ….petitioners Vs.

$ The TSRTC rep. by its Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Hyderabad and two others …. Respondents !Counsel for the petitioners : G.R. Mercy Vijaya Counsel for the Respondents : Sri Gaddam Srinivas, SC for

TSRTC

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. (2006) 4 SCC 1

2. LAWS (SC) – 2024-12-80 decided on 20.12.2024 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HYDERABAD * * * *

W.P. No.20460 OF 2022 Between:

J. Kishan and others ….petitioners And The TSRTC rep. by its Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Hyderabad and two others … Respondents ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 03.07.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes _____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 20460 of 2022

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed questioning the order of the

3^rd respondent in No.P3/122(2)/2009-WM; KR, dated 19.04.2012, in rejecting the representation of the petitioners, dated 04.04.2012 by holding that they are not eligible for regularization of their services.

2. Heard G.R. Mercy Vijaya, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Gaddam Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for respondents. Perused the record.

3. The facts, in a nutshell, are that the petitioners were engaged as sweepers and cleaners in the Zonal workshop TSRTC (The then APSRTC), Karimnagar ZONE, on 01.01.1996 as contract labourers, before bifurcation of the State. They were engaged as sweepers and cleaners by the Contractor named Sri. A. Srinivas for executing the work of sweeping and cleaning in the 1^st respondent Corporation at the Zonal workshop of the 2^nd respondent with effect from 01.01.1996. Initially, it was for one-year period. Subsequently, it was extended from time to time.

3(i) The Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued G.O.Ms No.287 dated 07.05.1981 prohibiting the engagement of contract labour in the field of Sweeping and Scavenging. Therefore, the Competent Authority, i.e. the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Karimnagar, has refused to grant the licence to the contractor and also registration certificate to the employer on the ground that engaging of contract labour was prohibited in respect of the above specific works.

3(ii) As per the policy of the Government, wherever there is a perennial work of sweeping and scavenging available, the said work has to be carried out by the regular employees and not by engaging the services of contract labour. As there is a prohibition in engaging the contract labourers for Sweeping and scavenging, the petitioners were engaged and worked for Sweeping and cleaning by the Contractor from 01.01.1996 to 30.06.1997 and 04.02.2003 to today.

3(iii) Initially, the petitioners filed W.P.No.13308 of 1997 before this Court declaring the action of the Corporation in engaging new persons in the place of the petitioners as illegal and, consequently, direct the respondents to treat the petitioners as regular employees, right from the date of their initial appointment with all consequential benefits. While pending the Wit Petition, the Petitioners were terminated on 01.07.1997. The said Writ Petition was allowed on 26.08.1999 with the following directions:

“In the result, the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the Petitioners in the post which they were engaged for carrying out the work as contract labour, however, subject to the fulfillment of the other requirements with reference to the Petitioners 7 to 10 where it was stated that their names were not there in the list supplied by the contractor, the respondents are directed to consider their subject to the satisfaction by the Petitioners