Dismissed

Saginala Thimmaiah v. E Seshadri

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Jul 2024WP/11060/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging the termination of services by a contractor. The Court held that no employer-employee relationship existed between the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 4, rendering the writ petition unmaintainable for non-existence of public duty.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed at the admission stage, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.

Saginala Thimmaiah Vs E Seshadri — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

• >3 /

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 11060 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sri Saginala Thimmaiah, S/o. S. Pedda Maddileti, Hindu, aged about 45 years, R/o. D.No.4-117,Alamur, Kurnool District, Andhra^Pradesh.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Sri E. Seshadri, Contractor, Andhra Pradesh Southern^Power Distribution Company (APSPDCL), Gadivemula Village, Mandal, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶12

¶13

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Operations - Panyam Mandal, Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company(APSPDCL), Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶14

The Deputy Executive Engineer, Operations, Nandyala Sub-Division, Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company(APSPDCL), Nandyal Town, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶15

The Executive Engineer, Operations, Nandyala Sub-Division,^Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company(APSPDCL), Nandyal Town, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶16

The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Energy, Secretarait Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Andhra Pradesh. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue any writ or order more particularly, writ in the nature of Certiorari (a) declaring the^{OrderofTermination} of services of the Petitioner, with effect from 24.02.2024, as Shift Operator, 33/11 KV, Alamur Sub-Station, Panyam Section, Nandyala Sub-Division, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company (APSPDCL), Kurnool District, issued by the 1®* Respondent is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Principles of Natural Justice^{andviolaticeArtricles}

¶17

16 and 311 of Constitution of India and (b) consequently, direct the Respondents to continue the Petitioner as Shift Operator, 33/11 KV, Alamur Sub-Station, Panyam Section, Nandyala Sub-Division, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company (APSPDCL), Kurnool District.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay the operation of orders of Termination^ofservicesof the Petitioner, with effect from 24.02.2024, as Shift Operator, 33/11 KV, Alamur Sub-Station, Panyam Section, Nandyala Sub-Division, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company (APSPDCL), Kurnool District, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI RAYAPROLU SRIKANTH

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: SRI CHALLA AJAY^KUMAR

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent 5: GP FOR SERVICES - I

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V.R.REDDY KOWURI,^SCFOR APSPDCL

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

APHC010208292024

¶26

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

¶27

[3331]

¶28

MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 11060 of 2024

¶32

Between:

¶33

Saginala Thimmaiah ... PETITIONER

¶34

AND

¶35

E Seshadri and Others

¶36

... RESPONDENT(S)

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶38

1.RAYAPROLU SRIKANTH

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶40

1 .V R REDDY KOWURI (SC FOR APSPDCL)

¶41

2.CHALLA AJAY KUMAR

¶42

3.GP FOR SERVICES 1

¶43

The Court made the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

The Writ Petition is filed impugning the letter issued^bythe 1 St respondent terminating the services of the petitioner^with effect from 24.02.2024 as Shift Operator, 33/11 KV Alamur Sub Station^inOperation

¶46

Page 2 of 3

¶47

Section, Panyam, without issuing show cause notice as illegal and arbitrary.

¶48

Heard Sri Rayaprolu Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.N.Priyanka, learned counsel representing Sri V.R, Reddy Kovvuri, learned standing counsel for respondents 2 to 4 and Sri S.Raju, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for 5^^ respondent.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent who is a Contractor, appointed the petitioner to render services, as a Shift Operator, on contractual terms. He would also submit that without issuing any notice, respondent terminated the services of the petitioner with effect from 24.02.2024 and hence, this writ petition is filed.

¶50

Per contra, Ms.N.Priyanka, learned counsel representing standing counsel for respondents 2 to 4 would submit that the writ petition itself is not maintainable, since there is no employer and employee relationship between the respondents 2 to 4 and petitioner. She would also submit that the mere opening of an escrow account for a specific purpose, would not establish any employer and employee relationship between the respondents 2 to 4 and petitioner.

¶51

Page 3 of 3

¶52

<br>

¶53

Now, the point for consideration is

¶54

Whether the writ petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking aforementioned relief, is maintainable?

¶55

As seen from the letter impugned in the writ petition, the same was emanated from the 1®* respondent-contractor of APSPDCL. There is no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and respondents 2 to 4. In the absence of any employer and employee relationship, the writ petition filed by the petitioner invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the opinion of this Court is not maintainable, There is no public duty or element involved in the facts of this case, and private disputes between contractor and petitioner are not amenable to Writ jurisdiction.

¶56

Given discussion supra, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the admission stage, giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum seeking redressal of his grievance. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

To,

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/- V. SATYANARAYANA DEPUTYl REGISTRAR SECnSirOFFICER

¶61

One CC to SRI RAYAPROLU SRIKANTH, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI CHALLA AJAY KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] ^ loUT]^^ SERVICES -1, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh.

¶62

One CC to Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, SC for APSPDCL. [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies

VSR

HIGH COURT

»
'
c
y-.

DATED:15/07/2024

ORDER

WP.No.11060 of 2024

AND/y}$
S 2 5 NOV 202'1
i\o
V'S'
. Current Section ^
'

¶71

DISMISSING THE W.P.

¶72

WITHOUT COSTS

Saginala Thimmaiah v. E Seshadri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saginala Thimmaiah v. E Seshadri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mupparaju. Nageswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Venkumahanti Prakasa Rao Vs the State of Ap

Smt. Gunji Mahadevamma, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

B.Kanthamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N Madan Mohan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Muthukur Mahesh Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh