Common Order:

1. All the Writ Petitions are filed to declare the action of Respondents in not considering the candidature of petitioners for absorption in APCPDCL against regular vacant Sub-Engineer post as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and violation of Article 14 & 21 of Constitution of India and for consequential relief.

2. Heard Sri Rajashekar Thallapally, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TRANSCO.

3. Since the issue involved in all the Writ Petition is one and same, the matters are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

4. The petitioner in all the cases are the casual employees of erstwhile Sanjay Rural Electric Cooperative Society Limited, Jogipet, Medak District (for short, “Sanjay RESCO”) and the array of respondents is also the same in all the Writ Petitions.

5. The averments made in the affidavits filed in support of all the Writ Petitions and the reliefs claimed therein are all same, except with regard to the length of service rendered by the petitioners therein.

6. The succinct facts of the case, as averred in the writ affidavits are that Sanjay RESCO, a registered Co-operative Society, was licensed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in July, 1982, to supply electricity to the public and was supplying electricity to consumers in 172 villages and 52 hamlets in various Mandals of Medak District.

               6.1. It is further averred that pursuant to the electricity reforms and the A.P. Electricity Reform Act, 1998, the responsibility for transmission and distribution of electricity was taken over by the A.P. TRANSCO from APSEB; that owing to financial and administrative difficulties, Sanjay RESCO was ordered to be wound up by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies vide proceedings dated 01.07.2003 and it merged into CPDCL; that at the time of winding up, 88 regular employees, 34 casual employees on consolidated monthly pay and 44 casual employees on daily wages were working in Sanjay RESCO.

               6.2. It is further averred that, pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.125, Energy (PR.II) Department, dated 15.10.2004, the regular employees of various RESCOs, including 88 regular employees of Sanjay RESCO, Jogipet, were absorbed into the services of the respondent-APCPDCL; that the petitioners, being casual workers/non-regular employees, along with other similarly placed employees, filed W.P.No.23551 of 2004 seeking their absorption into the services of the APCPDCL on par with the regular employees; that the said Writ Petition was disposed of along with a batch of Writ Petitions, filed by similarly situated casual employees, with certain observations and directions.

               6.3. It is further averred that the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, while upholding the winding-up of Sanjay RESCO, observed that the respondent therein could consider framing a suitable scheme for utilising the services of the non-regular employees, who include casual workers on consolidated monthly pay and casual workers on daily wage basis, subject to availability of sufficient and suitable work; that pursuant thereto, the respondent Corporation issued C.O.O.(CGM-HRD).Ms. No.426, dated 31.01.2006, prescribing guidelines for utilisation of the services of the casual employees of Sanjay RESCO by transferring them to other Divisions; that in compliance of the said Order, memo dated 26.04.2006, was issued directing the authorities concerned to utilise the services of the petitioners as Sub-Engineers at various places.

               6.4. It is further averred that thereafter, the casual employees of Sanjay RESCO submitted representations seeking their permanent absorption in the respondent-Corporation; that, during the course of consideration of such representations by the respondent authorities in the year 2009, it was noted that most of the erstwhile Sanjay RESCO casual employees had been rendering services for periods ranging from 12 to 20 years and that the nature of work being performed by them could not be regarded as merely casual in nature; and that, having regard to the likelihood of similar claims being made by other casual employees, the authorities considered a proposal for creation of 70 supernumerary posts, instead of regularising their services.

7. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite their requisite educational qualification and long length of service as Sub-Engineers, the respondents did not consider their request for absorption against regular vacant posts and that the respondent Corporation issued a notification for filling up vacant posts of Sub-Engineers (Electrical) by direct recruitment. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition is filed.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that without considering the representations of the petitioners, who had been working as Sub-Engineers in the respondent-Corporation for more than 11 years. for permanent/regular absorption in CPDCL, the respondents issued a notification for filling up the vacant posts of Sub-Engineers by direct recruitment and proposed to appoint fresh candidates, which is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; and that, as on the date of merger of Sanjay RESCO into the CPDCL, the petitioners possessed the requisite qualifications prescribed for the post of Sub-Engineer in the notification issued by respondent No.2.

               8.1. He further submitted that as per the recruitment notification, 190 regular posts were lying vacant, including the posts in Medak District; and that, out of the 77 casual employees of erstwhile Sanjay RESCO, the petitioners are stated to be eligible for the posts covered by the notification; and that, having regard to their requisite qualification and long-standing service, the petitioners are entitled to be considered for absorption against the available regular posts.

               8.2. He further submitted that the regular employees working in the same cadre, who are stated to be juniors to the petitioners and having lesser experience, are receiving regular pay and other service benefits.

               8.3. Learned counsel finally submitted that the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioners’ candidature for absorption against the regular vacant posts of Sub-Engineers, and proceeding to fill up the said posts by direct recruitment by issuance of notification, is arbitrary and unjust.

9. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following judgments:

               a) Dharam Singh and Others v. State of U.P. &Anr (2025 INSC 998):

               Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the reliance placed on Umadevi was misplaced, as the appellants were not seeking to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment, but were challenging the continued refusal to sanction posts despite the employer’s own acknowledgement of the need for such work, and clarified that Umadevi distinguishes between illegal appointments and irregular engagements and cannot be invoked to perpetuate precarious employment where the work is permanent.

               b) Md Rahamatullah v. Depot Manager, APSRTC, Godavari Khani Depot and others ((1999) 4 ALD 197)

               Wherein, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held as under:

               “An employee who has succeeded before the Labour Court and who has been directed to be reinstated with continuity of service has to be treated on par with all other employees. Otherwise, a stigma will be attached to the employees who are reinstated by virtue of the award of the Labour Court, if the impugned circular is allowed to continue. In my considered view, the circular is discriminatory and hence it is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution”.

10. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners, being casual employees of the erstwhile Sanjay RESCO, have no vested or enforceable right to seek absorption against the regular posts in APCPDCL; that pursuant to the winding up of Sanjay RESCO, the Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.125, dated 15.10.2004, directed absorption of only 88 regular employees and did not provide for absorption of the non-regular or casual employees, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim parity with the regular employees who were absorbed pursuant to the said Government Order.

               10.1. He further submitted that pursuant to the common order dated 14.11.2005 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.22290 of 2003 and batch filed by the erstwhile Sanjay RESCO casual employees, the respondents formulated a scheme for utilisation of their services, subject to availability of suitable work and having regard to their qualifications and experience; that accordingly, proceedings in C.O.O.(CGM-HRD) Ms.No.426, dated 31.01.2006 were issued for continuation of 77 casual workers in the same status in which they were working in Sanjay RESCO and for utilising their services against various posts.

               10.2. He further submitted that the said proceedings specifically provided that continuation of the casual employees would not confer upon them any right or benefit on par with the regular employees of APCPDCL; that they would not be entitled to claim absorption or regular appointment in the Corporation; that the petitioners were thus continued only in their existing casual status and the utilisation of their services as Sub-Engineer did not alter the nature of their engagement or confer any right to regular appointment or absorption.

               10.3. He further submitted that the representations submitted by the casual employees seeking permanent absorption were considered by the respondents, and since the issue involved a policy decision, the matter was referred to the competent authorities; that the financial implications of absorbing the erstwhile Sanjay RESCO casual employees were also examined; that the Government had not sanctioned such posts, but had only extended the benefit of minimum time scale of Basic Pay plus Dearness Allowance to the eligible casual workers; that the proposal for creation of supernumerary posts had only been forwarded by A.P. Transco to the Government.

               10.4. He further submitted that long continuation of the petitioners as casual employees or that they possess the prescribed qualification for the post of Sub-Engineer, by itself, do not create a right to appointment against regular posts or for their absorption; and that the petitioners’ claim for regularisation is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006 SCC Online SC 407)

               10.5. He specifically submitted that the petitioners were not appointed through any regular selection process and that there are no records to establish that their initial appointment was made on the basis of merit or through any prescribed recruitment procedure.

               10.6. He finally submitted that APCPDCL, being a public sector undertaking, is entitled to fill up its sanctioned vacancies in the initial cadres in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations, after obtaining the necessary approvals and by following the prescribed recruitment procedure; that the vacancies in the post of Sub-Engineer are required to be filled through a regular selection process; and that the petitioners cannot claim right to occupy a regular post merely because they had been working against such post in casual capacity and hence, all the Writ Petitions, being devoid of any merits, are liable to be dismissed.

11. In support of his contentions, learned Standing Counsel for respondents relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi’s case (cited supra), wherein, it is held as under:

               “Those who are working on daily wages formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in employment, even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equal work. There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating unequals as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though they have never been selected in terms of the relevant recruitment rules.”

12. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

13. The material available on record discloses that the petitioners were initially engaged as casual employees in the erstwhile Sanjay RESCO and continued to work until it was ordered to be wound up. Thereafter, pursuant to the orders passed by the authorities and the scheme formulated for utilisation of the services of the erstwhile casual employees of Sanjay RESCO, the petitioners continued to be engaged as Sub-Engineers under APCPDCL for a considerable period.

14. It is also evident from the record that the erstwhile casual employees of Sanjay RESCO had made representations seeking their permanent absorption in CPDCL. The matter was considered by the authorities, and that during the course of such consideration, it was noticed that a number of such employees had been working for several years and that their services were being continuously utilised. Though the proposal for creation of supernumerary posts was considered, the same did not ultimately result in conferment of regular status upon the petitioners. Subsequently, the Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 22.10.2010, extended the benefit of minimum time scale of Basic Pay plus Dearness Allowance to 28 eligible casual workers of the erstwhile Sanjay RESCO, who were appointed prior to 25.11.1993, while specifically providing that such benefit would not confer any right of regularisation on them.

15. It is pertinent to note that the respondents have placed much reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umadevi’s case (cited supra). It is settled proposition of law that a person cannot claim regular appointment merely because he has continued for a long period in a temporary capacity. However, the aforesaid principle cannot be applied without examining the factual circumstances in which the petitioners’ services have been continued and utilised over the years.

16. In this regard, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dharam Singh’s case (cited supra) assumes relevance. The principle emerging from the aforesaid decisions is that while long continuation in casual employment, by itself, cannot be treated as a source of a right to regular appointment, the Court, while examining the legality of the action impugned before it, held that the nature of the work continuously performed, the employer’s conduct in continuing to utilise the services for long period, the qualification of the employee and the subsequent availability of regular vacancies, are all relevant circumstances which cannot be ignored while examining whether the employee’s claim deserves consideration.

17. In the present case, the facts have to be examined in the light of the aforesaid principles. The petitioners possessed the qualification prescribed for the post of Sub-Engineer as on the date of merger of the erstwhile Sanjay RESCO and their services were thereafter continued by the respondent-Corporation and utilised as Sub-Engineers. It is further evident that such utilisation continued for a substantial period of about 11 to 14 years. It is also relevant to note that while the petitioners possessed the requisite qualification for the post of Sub-Engineer and had been continuously discharging the duties attached to the said post for a considerable length of time, the respondent-Corporation proceeded to notify regular vacancies in the same cadre for being filled up by direct recruitment, without considering the petitioners’ claim for absorption against such vacancies, who are duly qualified for the post and had already been rendering services in the same capacity for several years. In such circumstances, not considering the claim of the petitioners for absorption for the available regular vacancies, while fresh candidates are sought to be recruited to perform the same work, results in the petitioners losing an opportunity to be considered for regular appointment despite their prolonged service and requisite qualification.

18. Having regard to the long and continuous service rendered by the petitioners, the nature of the duties continuously discharged by them, the fact that their services were utilised by CPDCL as Sub-Engineer for a considerable period, and the availability of regular vacancies in the said cadre, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners’ claim deserve consideration by the competent authority. At the same time, in view of the specific contention of the respondents that there are no proper records establishing that the petitioners were initially engaged through a regular selection process or on the basis of merit, this Court deems it not appropriate to straightaway direct their absorption. However, the petitioners cannot be denied consideration of their candidature merely on the ground of the casual nature of their initial engagement.

19. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent-CPDCL to consider the candidature of the petitioners for absorption/regular appointment against the available regular vacancies of Sub-Engineer, after duly verifying their educational qualification, eligibility and in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations and in the light of the observations made hereinabove.

20. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.