Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 89 (AP)

G. Anjaiah v. APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad

2017-02-10

S.V.BHATT

body2017
ORDER : S.V. Bhatt, J. 1. Heard Sri V. Vishwanatham for petitioners and Sri G. Vidya Sagar for respondents. 2. The petitioners pray for mandamus declaring the action of respondents in inviting tender notification dated 5.5.2009 in Eenadu daily for outsourcing the traffic guides in respondent-Corporation, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 3. The petitioners further pray for a direction to continue them as traffic guides by paying minimum wages on par with skilled labour. 4. The petitioners worked as Controllers, TTI's, Traffic Inspectors, ADC's and Conductors in respondent-Corporation and admittedly, retired from service on reaching 58 years age of superannuation. The respondent-Corporation engaged the services of petitioners as Traffic Guides/Loaders, keeping in view their physical fitness and their ability to guide passengers in a few bus stops, loading points, etc. The respondent-Corporation offered to pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- per month to each Traffic Guide or Loader. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent assured to pay minimum wages as prescribed by the Government from time to time for utilising the services of petitioners as Traffic Guides and Loaders. The petitioners filed Letter No. P2/255(8)/2006-RM:WL, dated 24.8.2006 evidencing the appointment as Traffic Guides/Loaders. 5. The petitioners further allege that they have been discharging skilled duties and the respondents are also satisfied with the services rendered by them. The grievance of petitioners is that the work entrusted to petitioners is the work attached to the cadre of controllers but Rs. 50/- is far below the minimum wage paid to controllers. While matter stood thus, the 1st respondent issued Circular No. PD-11/2009, dated 19.3.2009 outsourcing the job of traffic guides at various traffic points. The apprehension is that with the entrustment of job now carried out by the petitioners to outsourcing agency, the petitioners will be discontinued. Hence, the instant writ petition is filed. 6. The petitioners for enforcement of right or challenging the circular dated 19.3.2009 or tender notification dated 5.5.2009 raised several grounds in the affidavit, however, at the hearing Sri V. Viswanatham has confined his submissions to a very few grounds. Hence, all the objections raised by the petitioners are not adverted to. 7. The respondents filed counter-affidavits opposing the writ prayer in all fours. It is stated that the appointment as Traffic Guides/Loaders is not in dispute and on the request of petitioners engagement as Traffic Guides/Loaders has been extended by one more year. Hence, all the objections raised by the petitioners are not adverted to. 7. The respondents filed counter-affidavits opposing the writ prayer in all fours. It is stated that the appointment as Traffic Guides/Loaders is not in dispute and on the request of petitioners engagement as Traffic Guides/Loaders has been extended by one more year. The respondents dispute that the duty now discharged by the petitioners is akin to controllers, etc. The respondents further deny that any assurance to pay minimum wages was made by the officers of the Corporation. Through office order ED(O) Lr. No. T3/287(3)/2001, dated 28.1.2001 instructions were issued to engage traffic guides/loaders on remuneration of Rs. 1,500/- per month and the same was communicated to all depots. The petitioners are offered to work as traffic guides. Therefore, the exploitation now alleged in the affidavit is without merit and liable to be rejected. The respondent refers to Circular No. PD-11/2009, dated 19.3.2009 and the consequential tender notification dated 5.5.2009 and submits that the petitioners at any rate cannot challenge the circular or tender notice issued by the respondent-Corporation. It is the case of respondents that the Traffic Guide is not a post borne out by cadre of the petitioners and appointed on regular basis. Further the arrangement through Traffic Guide/Loader is a temporary arrangement to ease the traffic at bus depots or stops. 8. The respondents keeping in view the working of traffic guides, the changed circumstances namely, the division of Corporation into two entities and streamlining the available work force, it is submitted by Sri G. Vidya Sagar that the Corporation does not want to continue traffic guides at all either by utilizing the services of the retired employees or through outsourcing. On merits, it is contended that the petitioners who are retired employees do not have a right to challenge the policy decision or tender notice issued by the Corporation. He contends that the Corporation either for best utilization of available work force or to minimize the expenditure can certainly act in the interest of Corporation and with the changed circumstances, he submits that the request of the petitioners cannot and could not be considered in any manner and prays for dismissing the writ petition. 9. Sri V. Vishwanatham submits that a few of the petitioners are still hale and healthy and fit to work as traffic guides/loaders. 9. Sri V. Vishwanatham submits that a few of the petitioners are still hale and healthy and fit to work as traffic guides/loaders. The respondent-Corporation can be directed to consider the case of interested and eligible petitioners for appointment, as such a policy decision was taken in the year 2001 keeping in view the interest of the retired employees as well as the interest of Corporation, a similar policy decision can be taken to give little relief to these employees as well. The learned Counsel after noticing the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and additional counter-affidavit does not persuade the Court to demonstrate that a right exist in the petitioners. 10. Having regard to the changed circumstances and present stand of the Corporation, this Court is of the view that the prayer of petitioners need not be considered in full detail. Even otherwise the petitioners being retired employees after taking engagement as traffic controller cannot and ought not expect this as second lease of employment in the Corporation on terms not compatible to Corporation and its finances. 11. After the order is dictated, learned Counsel for the petitioners draws the attention of the Court to the amount paid by respondent-Corporation pursuant to interim directions issued by this Court, which is admittedly over and above the amount agreed to be paid by the Corporation while engaging their services as traffic controller/loaders and apprehends recovery from the petitioners. Sri G. Vidya Sagar submits that the amount has been paid pursuant to the direction of this Court and leaves it to this Court to pass appropriate orders in this behalf. 12. Having regard to these submissions, the order is concluded by observing that the respondents are directed not to take steps for recovery of any amount paid to petitioners during and in the course of their continuation as traffic controllers/loaders. 13. With the above observation, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.