Palapolu Balaji Naik, v. A.P.Power Generation Corporation Limited

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITON No.3409 OF 2012 ORDER:

Smt.A.Deepthi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent-Corporation produced common order dated 09-12-2016 in WP.Nos 34690 and 37998 of 2012 and stated that in similar circumstances, this Court disposed of both writ petitions.

The petitioners cannot claim any right for appointment with the respondent-Corporation, as there never existed any employer-employee relationship between them; and the mere fact that their services were engaged by the contractor does not entitle them to claim that the principal employer should continue their services. No relief can, therefore, be granted directing the respondents to engage the services of the petitioners. While no direction can be issued to the respondent-Corporation to engage the services of the petitioners, I have no reason to doubt that on a representation being made by the petitioners, and if the respondent is engaging casual labour from time to time, their request shall also be considered in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. As a sequel to the disposal of this petition, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J 06-09-2017 Nvl