Dr. G.Haragopal, S/O Late Bhaskar Rao, Age 65 Years, v. . The State Of Telangana,

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.316 OF 2015 DATED: 12.10.2015 Between:

Dr. G.Haragopal ... Petitioner and The State of Telangana and others ... Respondents

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.316 of 2015 PC: (per the Hon'ble The Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner in the instant PIL makes the following prayer: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the Nature of Mandamus to declare in non paying the salaries in accordance with the various laws and not regularizing service of 2,500 contract employees of respondents companies, who have been working in the core activity of 400 K.V, 220 K.V, 132 K.V, 33/11 K.

V 700 substations, and Power Generation Stations, which are situated at Kothagudem, Bhupalapally, Ramagundem, Nagarjuna Sagar, Priyadarshini Jurala, Sriramsagar Project and also Distribution of Power of Transco in the State of Telangana as Shift In-charge or Operator as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, unlawful, unconstitutional and against to the Sec.4 of the Equal Work to Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, the Rule 25(V) (A) of the Contract Labor (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1971 and against to the Sec.10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1971 and against to the Sec.

10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and Rules 1975 and also against to an Article 14, 15, 16, 17 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also various Judgments of an Apex Court and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

The questions raised and the prayer made in the petition, in our opinion, cannot be examined in PIL, apart from the fact it is a service matter. It is always open to the employees to approach appropriate forums for redressal of their grievance including seeking regularization, as prayed for by the petitioner. Keeping that open to the employees, PIL is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.

________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ 12th OCTOBER, 2015.

_____________ S.V. BHATT, J kvni