Dismissed

Avasani Sivasankar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Nov 2024WP/1003/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by a temporary Assistant Bill Collector appointed through a manpower contractor. The Court held that in the absence of a direct employer-employee relationship with the State, the petitioner has no standing against the official respondents under Article 226, as the dispute is a private contractual matter to be resolved against the contractor.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. No costs.

Avasani Sivasankar, Vs The State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

APHC010002182020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

[3310]

¶4

WEDNESDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 1003/2020

Between:

Avasani Sivasankar,

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶13

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶15

1.V R REDDY KOVVURI

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶17

1.P C REDDY (SC FOR SERVICE MUNICIPALITIES RR, NELLORE)

¶18

2.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶19

3.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP)

¶20

The Court made the following Order:

¶21

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶22

seeking the following relief:

¶23

“…. . to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus the respondent No.3 in not permitting me to discharge my duties as Assistant Bill Collector, (Temporary Employee) in its office without assigning any reason whatsoever as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to me under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the

¶24

¶25

Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.3 to permit me to discharge my duties as Assistant Bill Collector, (Temporary Employee) in its office and paying the salaries attached to the same …….”

¶26

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Bill Collector (Temporary employee) in the 3^rd respondent office in the month of September, 2014 on contract basis and since then, the petitioner discharging his duties. While things stood thus, the 3^rd respondent in the month of November, 2019 informed the petitioner that his services as Assistant Bill Collector were no more required and need not required to attend the duties. When the petitioner asked for reason for discontinuation of service, the 3^rd respondent told that, enquire the reasons from the local ruling party M.L.A., and the petitioner was further informed that, as he supported the opposition party during 2019 Assembly Elections, his services were no more required. Further, even if the petitioner was allowed to enter the premises of 3^rd respondent office, the other officials are not recording the attendance of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 02.12.2019 to the 2^nd respondent stating the above said reasons and requested him to direct the 3^rd respondent to allow the petitioner to discharge his duties. But the 2^nd respondent has not taken any action. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶27

¶28

The 3^rd respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and mainly contended that the 3^rd respondent has labour contract with Siva Sai Securities and the said Siva Sai Securities has appointed the petitioner and some others in their services on outsourcing basis and they deputed the petitioner to work in Rajampet Municipality. It is further contended that the Government has sanctioned 13 sachivalayams to Rajampet Municipality and the post of Administrative secretaries has been created for maintaining the entire Bill Collector work and converted to as Administrative Secretary. As per the directions of the Government, the entire system of collection of Property Tax and New Assessments and Additional Alteration and other Bill Collectors activities are assigned to the sachivalayam and there is no necessary to the Municipality to continue the Outsourcing services of the petitioner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶29

Heard Mr.M.Kiran Kumar, learned counsel representing Mr.V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.P.Sudeepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, for the respondents.

¶30

On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the petitioner has been performing his duties with utmost sincerity and the 3^rd respondent is not

¶31

¶32

permitting the petitioner to discharge his duties on basis of political pressure, without assigning any reasons and without following the procedure established by law, which is nothing but political vendetta meted out against the petitioner. He further submits that if the 3^rd respondent is preventing the petitioner from discharging his duties without assigning any reason, there is every chance of terminating the service of the petitioner on the ground of unauthorised absence. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

¶33

Learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents urged in the counter affidavit, submits that, the Municipal Authority of Rajampet never stopped any employee from discharging the duties and neither involved in any political issues nor compiled any politicians recommendations at any point of time. The Municipality of Rajampet will only follow the rules and regulations prescribed in the Municipal Act. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶34

Perused the record.

¶35

Admittedly, there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the official respondents. In the absence of an employer-employee relationship the official respondents cannot be made parties to such litigation, more so under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the opinion of this Court the present

¶36

¶37

contract is pure and simple contract for supply of manpower with no statutory element at all. There is no public duty involved and the purely private right is the issue sought to be agitated. There is no public duty involved for a mandamus to be granted.

¶38

In the present case, the petitioner is working under private contractor who has been entrusted work with the job of providing employees for the official respondents. It is not the official respondent that has removed the petitioner from service. It is manpower contract, which has removed him. There is no binding contract between the petitioner and the official respondent. So it is held that the contract employees appointed through Outsourcing Agency do not seek continuation against the principle employees i.e., official respondents. In view of the same, the outsourcing employee does not have any direct relationship with the Government and he cannot claim such relief. In such cases, the Court observed the cause of action or grievance of those removed from services accrues against the manpower contractor and not on the principle employer i.e., official respondent herein.

¶39

The law is clear that in a pure non-statutory contractual matter a writ is not maintainable. It is also clear that in the absence of employee and employer relationship, particularly with the State or State instrumentality a writ is not maintainable. If the petitioner has grievance against the contractor, who

¶40

¶41

employed him, he has to approach the concerned authority in accordance with

¶42

law, but not by way of filing Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶43

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶44

12 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶45

¶46

Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J

¶47

BMS

Avasani Sivasankar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avasani Sivasankar, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Aruna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Aditya Edu. Society & Another, Vs the Dy. Commissioner, Endowments Dept. & 3 Ors.

Smt. J.Meena, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Am Babu Vs State of Ap

Konakalla Reddimma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

C.Parvathi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh