Dismissed¶77

Bayanaboyana Janardhana v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Apr 2026WP/8516/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P. No. 8516/2026, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Justice D. Ramesh, decided 07.04.2026. Maintainability of an Article 226 writ petition by ten contract-engaged Shift Operators of APSPDCL sub-stations challenging proposed termination vide CGM(HRD) Memo No.139/26 dated 17.03.2026; dismissed as not maintainable, relying on Division Bench rulings in T. Subba Reddy v. State of A.P. (W.A.No.467 of 2023) and The Chairman and Managing Director v. P. Nagendra (W.A.No.310 of 2024); liberty granted to approach the Labour Court; references to Articles 226, 14, 19, 21 of the Constitution and Section 151 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent Labour Court for their grievance; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed as a sequel. ¶77

Bayanaboyana Janardhana Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent Labour Court for their grievance; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed as a sequel.

¶77

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable / is the appropriate remedy for challenging the proposed termination of the services of the petitioners, who worked as Shift Operators under contractor-respondents 6 to 11, in view of the Division Bench rulings on the absence of privity of contract / employer-employee relationship with the official respondents.

¶50

Court's answer

On perusal of the observations of the Division Benches of this Court, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and is not the appropriate remedy to be approached directly in such matters; the Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal have jurisdiction to consider such aspects and, on determination of the relevant factual aspects based on material, to pass appropriate orders.

¶74

Ratio / Principle

Following the Division Bench observations, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent Labour Court for their grievance; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed.

¶77

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Justice D. Ramesh), Writ Petition No. 8516/2026, decided 07.04.2026: Ten Shift Operators working under contractor-respondents 6 to 11 sought a writ of mandamus declaring illegal the action of the 3rd respondent in proposing termination of their services vide Memo No.CGM(HRD)/GM(HR-II)/DCG(PEN and OS)/G D.No. 139/26 dated 17.03.2026, alleging non-possession of the qualification at the time of appointment and subsequent acquisition thereof (and, as regards petitioner 11, production of a certificate other than the ITI Electrician Trade Certificate), and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21. The learned standing counsel raised a preliminary objection on maintainability, placing reliance on the Division Bench judgments in T. Subba Reddy and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, W.A.No.467 of 2023 (dated 14.07.2023), and The Chairman and Managing Director and others vs. P. Nagendra and others, W.A.No.310 of 2024 (dated 30.08.2024), which held that there is no privity of contract / established employer-employee relationship between outsourced workers and the official respondents, and that the Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal have jurisdiction over such questions. Holding that a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable and not the appropriate direct remedy in such matters, the Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, granting the petitioners liberty to approach the competent Labour Court; no order as to costs; connected miscellaneous petitions stood closed.

¶1

APHC010169512026

¶2

[3208]

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 8516/2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

BAYANABOYANA JANARDHANA, S/O RAMA CHANDRAIAH, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC SHIFT OPERATOR(CL), KUPPAMRAJUPALLI SUBSTATION, I.D. NO. PCL06608, (SI NO 34) R/O NAGULAGUTTAPALLI,SURABHI VILLAGE, CHAKRAYAPETA MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516259.

¶10

CHADIVE MADHAVA REDDY,, S/O BHASKAR REDDY,AGED 38 YEARS, OCC SHIFT OPERATOR(CL),KUPPAMRAJUPALLI SUBSTATION, I.D. NO. PCL06610, (SI NO 35), R/O THOTTIKADAPALLI VILLAGE, CHAKRAYAPETA MANDAL,YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, A.P516259.

¶11

TALLAPALLI GANGADHARAO,, S/O RAMANNA, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC SHIFT OPERATOR(CL), E. KOTHA PALLI SUB- STATION, I.D. NO. PCL06430, (SI NO 30) R/O E. KOTHA PALLI VILLAGE, CHANDRAGIRI POST, PULIVENDULA MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516390.

¶12

YERRAGUDI PALEM CHANDRAYUDU,, S/O KESAVULU, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC SHIFT OPERATOR(CL), DEGREE COLLEGE SUBSTATION, I.D. NO. PCL06419, (SI NO 28) R/O D.NO. 8/96-A, NALLAPUREDDYPALLI, EARRABALLI VILLAGE, PULIVENDULA MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516390.

¶13

DASARI BALARAJU,, S/O PULLAIAH, AGED 42 YEARS, OCC SHIFT OPERATOR(CL),SANTHAKOWURU SUBSTATION, I.D. NO. PCL06538, (SI NO 38) R/O D.NO. 1-88, SANTH KOWURU VILLAGE,THANDUR MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516421.

¶14

KOTHAPU JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, S/O VIJAY SUDHAKAR REDDY, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC SHIFT OPERATOR(CL), CHAKRYAPETA SUBSTATION, I.D. NO. PCL06603, (SI NO 26) R/O D.NO. 4/861-C-3,

¶15

¶16

MAHATMA NAGAR, YERRAGUNTIA MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516309.

¶17

YELAMAKURU RAMA CHANDRUD,, S/O OBULESU, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC SHIFT OPERATOR (CL), PERNAPADU SUB- STATION, I.D. NO. PCL06579,( SI NO 36) R/O D.NO. 3-27, PERNAPADU VILLAGE, VEMULA MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516349

¶18

ONTEDDU VENKATA SREEDHARA REDDY, S/O LAKSHMI REDDY, AGED 47 YEARS, OCC SHIFT OPERATOR (CL), JANGAMREDDYPALLI SUB- STATION, I.D. NO. PCL06503, (SI NO 32) R/O DEVATHAPURAM VILLAGE, JANGAMREDDYPALLI POST, SIMHADRIPURAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516464.

¶19

CHAPPIDI CHANDRA MOULI REDDY,, S/O CHENNA REDDY, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC SHIFT OPERATOR (CL), JANGAMREDDYPALLI SUBSTATION, I.D. NO. PCL06504, (SI NO 31) R/O JANGAMREDDYPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, SIMHADRIPURAM MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516464.

¶20

P.SUDARSHAN REDDY,, S/O NARASIMHA REDDY, AGED 39 YEARS, OCC SHIFT OPERATOR (CL), RAMIREDDYPALLI SUB- STATION, I.D. NO. PCL06554, (SI NO 37) R/O RAMIREDDYPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, VEMPALLI MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516321.

¶21

...PETITIONER(S)

¶22

AND

¶23

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ENERGY DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238.

¶24

THE ANDHRA PRADESH SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITED, APSPDCL REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MD/CMD, 19-13, 65/A SRINIVASAPURAM, TIRUCHANOOR ROAD, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT-517501.

¶25

THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER/HRD, SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A.P. LIMITED, VIDYUTH NILAYAM, TIRUCHANOOR ROAD, KESAVAYANI GUNTA, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT-517501.

¶26

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, APSPDCL, KADAPA BESIDES GOVT. POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE, M ROAD, KADAPA - 516008

¶27

¶28

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OPERATIONS, PULIVENDULA DIVISION, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, NEAR 33/11 K.V SS COMPOUND, 0PP. MUNICIPAL OFFICE,AMANGENPALLI ROAD,PULIVENDULA MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516390.

¶29

M/S SANDEEP CONSTRUCTIONS, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, J. VEERA REDDY, R/O. D.NO. 26/932-1, GURAVAIAHTHOTA, PRODDUTURU MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516360.

¶30

M/S RAJIVNAGAR COLONY HARIZANALABBURCONTARCT COOP SOCIETY LTD, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, CH. YESUPADAM, R/O. D.NO. 3/89RAJIV NAGAR COLONY, MIDUTHUR VILLAGE, KHAJIPET (M.D), YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516203.

¶31

M/S SRI SAI SUBRAMANAYAM ELECTRICALS AND CONSTRUCTIONS, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, K. DIVYA SWAROOP, R/O. D.NO. 42/397-6, RADHA NILAYAM,BHAGYA NAGAR COLONY, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516002.

¶32

N SREENIVASULA REDDY, S/O RAMI REDDY, AGE MAJOR, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O. KOTHUR VILLAGE, PENDLIMARRY MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, A.P- 516216.

¶33

M/S BWK SERVICES CONTRACT PVT LTD, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, B. GANDA RAJU, R/O. FLAT NO. 102, VISWA SURYA APARTMENT, POTTIPADU ROAD, PRODDUTUR (M.D), YSR KADAPA DISTRICT-516360.

¶34

P NARASA REDDY, S/O P.KONDA REDDY, AGE MAJOR, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O. D.NO. 7-1-581/1 BADVEL, BADVELMANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, A.P-516227.

¶35

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶36

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 toleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action the action of the 3rd respondents in proposing termination of Petitioners services vide Memo No.CGM(HRD)/GM(HR-II)/DCG(PEN and OS)/ G D.No. 139/26 dated 17.03.2026 alleging that petitioners 1 to 10 did not possess m qualification at the time of appointment and subsequently acquired the same whereas in respect of petitioner 11 alleging that he produced other than ITI Electrician Trade Certificate and accordingly directing the respondent to intimate the 6th to 11th respondents to issue to issue notice of termination to all the petitioners as illegal,

¶37

¶38

arbitrary, unfair, violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and further direct the respondents to not to terminate the petitioners from his services and pass

¶39

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶40

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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings, including termination of the petitioners' services, in pursuant to the impugned Vide Memo No. CGM(HRD)/GM(HR-II)/DCG(PEN and OS)/ D.No. 139/26 dated 17-03-2026, and pass

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶42

1.CHALLAGALI GOPALARAJU

¶43

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶44

1.VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL

¶45

2.GP FOR SERVICES I

¶46

The Court made the following:

¶47

ORDER:

¶48

The petitioners are working under the respondents 6 to 11 Contractors as Shift Operators and their contract has been extended from time to time. Now the services of the petitioners have been directed to be terminated without providing

¶49

any opportunity not even following the principles of natural justice. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶50

The learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have taken preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition basing on the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court

¶51

in T. Subba Reddy and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh in W.A.No.467 of 2023, vide

¶52

¶53

its judgment dated 14.07.2023, the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court has held as

¶54

under:

¶55

“9. Undisputedly there is no privity of contract between the official respondents and the appellant. The recruitment was done by the respondent No.3 the contractor. The petitioner was not engaged by the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶56

With respect to the payment by the respondent No.2 out of escrow account, in a similar matter, in W.P.Nos.12035, 12154 and 11898 of 2021, this aspect was elaborately dealt in judgment dated 05.08.2021. It is apt to reproduce the relevant part, as under:-

¶57

“Therefore, a reading of these clauses cumulatively leads to a conclusion that in order to ensure that the amounts/salaries due to the workers are paid to them this escrow account has been opened. The account was not opened for any other reason Normally, if a contractor is appointed he will raise a bill and collect the amounts, but as the payment of salaries to outsourced employees has become a matter of serious concern it was decided in the meeting held on 13.07.2018 to open these escrow accounts. The contractors stated that they have no objection if the operators are paid salaries directly through an escrow bank account.

¶58

As far as the other issues are concerned it is clear that the recruitment is done by the contractor. The attendance sheet is prepared by the contractor. It is sent to the vendor to raise a bill. Clause 2.3 and in 2.11 of Working Methodology clearly state as follows:

¶59

“2.3. Attendance Sheet shall be prepared each month separately for each sub-station. The attendance sheet shall be marked „P‟ for present and „A‟ for absence (pro-forma enclosed) and signed by the AE/or ADE of respective sub-stations and submit the same to the respective DE/Operation by 25th of every month, to admit the vendor bill for payment; a copy of attendance sheet shall be mailed to the vendor to raise the bill accordingly.

¶60

¶61

2.11 The salaries shall be paid to the outsourced employees on 1st of every month through contractors‟ escrow account by Pay office seeking LOC against the liability documents.”

¶62

Therefore, it is clear that the opening of the escrow account is for a specific purpose and it does not establish and employer-employee relationship between the petitioner/ workmen and the official respondent. There is no privity of contract between the petitioners and the official respondents.”

¶63

The Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court has also held in the similar circumstances in W.A.No.310 of 2024 dated 30.08.2024 ( The Chairman and Managing Director and others vs. P. Nagendra and others ), wherein the identical issue with regard to Shift Operators has been considered and finally disposed of the matter with the following observations:

¶64

“50. A reading of the judgment of the learned single Judge shows that, the writ petition was allowed observing that though the petitioners were engaged on contract basis, their services were required continuously for the organization. The duties and responsibilities entrusted to petitioners were of perennial nature. It could not be stated that the services of the petitioners were no longer required and as such there was no requirement of continuing the petitioners either on contract, casual, or daily basis. The writ petitioners claim was opposed by the company on the ground that they were engaged through contractor which aspect was extensively considered in W.A.No. 1478 of 1999 in which, following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suresh (supra), it was observed that the statutory body should not be permitted to violate the statute with impunity and the same would amount to unfair labour practice. Thus, the emphasis laid was on the judgment in W.A.No.1478 of 1999 which had attained finality as also on the fact that the writ petitioners were working for last twenty years and there was no adverse remarks against them from which it was drawn that they had rendered satisfactory service.

¶65

¶66

A reading of the judgment of the learned single Judge, however, does not show, any finding recorded on the aspect of the relationship of the employer and employee between the writ appellant and the writ petitioners.”

¶67

It has also been observed by the Division Bench of this

¶68

Hon’ble Court in para No.59 (ii)(iii) and (vii) of its judgment as

¶69

follows:

¶70

(ii) In the absence of any finding on the aspect of the relationship of the employer and employee between the writ appellants and the writ petitioners, the direction for regularization is unsustainable.

¶71

(iii) The question whether there is relationship of employer and employee between the writ appellants and the writ petitioners is a question of fact. To record the finding, the material would be required. The evidence would be required. It will also have to be seen whether the writ appellant is a licenced principal employer and the contractor, as named in the writ petitions, was a licenced contractor. It will also have to be seen whether there was any genuine contract system prevailing at the relevant point of time or not, and whether the contract labourers became employees of the principal employer in course of time and whether the engagement and employment through contractor was a mere camouflage. All this is required to be established on the basis of requisite material, may be after lifting of veil or piercing the veil.

¶72

(vii) The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not the appropriate remedy to be approached directly in such matters seeking regularization, and particularly, when the Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal have got the jurisdiction to consider such aspect and on the determination of the relevant factual aspects based on material they have jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders for regularization.

¶73

On perusal of the above observations of the Division Benches of this

¶74

Hon’ble Court, it is very clear that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable before this Court and this is not an appropriate remedy to be approached directly in such matters seeking regularization, and particularly, when the Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal have got the jurisdiction to consider such aspect and on the determination of the

¶75

¶76

relevant factual aspects based on material they have jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders for regularization.

¶77

Following the above said observations, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent Labour Court for their grievance. No order as to costs.

¶78

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

¶79

_______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶80

Date:07.04.2026 GK

¶81

¶82

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶83

WRIT PETITION NO:8516 of 2026

¶84