Dismissed¶29

Y. Varalakshmi, v. The Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Feb 2026WP/41850/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AP High Court Amaravati writ petition dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties and lack of prerequisite details; EPF Act ESI Act deductions denied benefits; contract labour; Article 14; liberty to file fresh writ petition within six weeks; no costs; Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam; W.P. No. 41850 of 2015; dated 05.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate steps, including filing a fresh writ petition arraying the proper and necessary parties with all prerequisite details within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no order as to costs. ¶29

Y. Varalakshmi, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' failure to make appropriate deductions and denial of benefits under the EPF Act and ESI Act was illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, as alleged by the petitioners (framed by the relief sought; not adjudicated) +1 more

¶20

Ratio / Principle

For lack of proper prerequisite details in the writ affidavit or material papers, the petitioners were unable to demonstrate the period for which they worked under the respondent contractor, making it impracticable to track the alleged erring contractor.

¶26

Key takeaways

On going through the writ affidavit, the Court found that it lacked prerequisite details and that there was non-joinder of proper and necessary parties for effective adjudication of the lis.ratio¶27
The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of proper and necessary parties, with liberty left open to the petitioners to take appropriate steps, including filing a fresh writ petition arraying the proper and necessary parties with all prerequisite details within six weeks.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, J.; decided 05.02.2026): Petitioners sought a mandamus against A.P. Power Generation Corporation and others for not making appropriate deductions and denying benefits under the EPF Act and ESI Act, claiming the action violated Article 14 of the Constitution and the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. The Court, noting the absence of prerequisite details in the writ affidavit — the petitioners could not demonstrate the period for which they worked under the respondent contractor, making it impracticable to track the erring contractor — and the non-joinder of proper and necessary parties, dismissed the writ petition on the ground of non-joinder. Liberty was granted to file a fresh writ petition arraying proper and necessary parties with all prerequisite details within six weeks. No order as to costs; pending applications stood closed.

¶1

APHC010138462015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3504]

¶5

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 41850/2015

¶9

Between:

¶10

Y. Varalakshmi and another

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corporation and others

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioners:

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶17

Mr. K. Krishna Bushan Chowdary (Central Government Counsel)

¶18

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶19

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶20

“… to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents in not deducting appropriate deductions and further action in denying benefits due to the petitioner under EPF Act and ESI Act as highly illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India, and contrary to the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act and Rules made therein and pass…”

¶21

When the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr. K. Krishna Bhushan

¶22

Chowdary, learned Standing Counsel for A.P. GENCO, submits that, in terms

¶23

of the order, dated 31.01.2026, the General Manager of the A.P. GENCO

¶24

¶25

MRK, J W.P.No.41850 of 2015

¶26

pursued the record. However, in view of lack of proper prerequisite details mentioned either in the writ affidavit or in the material papers, the petitioners were not able to demonstrate the period for which they worked under the respondent contractor. In the absence of the said important details, it is impracticable to track the alleged erred contractor.

¶27

In light of the above submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel, this Court has gone through the averments made in the writ affidavit and finds that, writ affidavit lacks the prerequisite details and also non-joinder of proper and necessary parties for effective adjudication of the lis, as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶28

In light of the above facts and circumstances, and in the interest of justice, the present writ petition is dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of the proper and necessary parties. However, liberty is left open to the petitioners to take appropriate steps, including filing a fresh writ petition by arraying the proper and necessary parties with all prerequisite details within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶29