LAWS(APH)-2025-1-125

GANGA RAVI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Decided On January 24, 2025
Ganga Ravi Prasad Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order.

(2.) Since the facts in all the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore WP No.466 of 2022 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience.

(3.) The facts of the case are that all the Petitioners are working in various capacities on the outsourcing basis in the Government General Hospital, Kurnool City. Kurnool District. The Petitioners have been working as Electricians, Lift Operators, barbers. Plumbers. Carpenters, Male Nursing Orderly and Female Nursing Orderly and Front Desk Managers in the Government General Hospital, Kurnool City, Kurnool District initially from the month of October 2018 for a period of 3 years through the agency of Nakshatra House Keeping Services vide Agreement dtd. 30/7/2018. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No. 136 dtd. 4/11/2019 incorporating the Andhra Pradesh Corporation for Outsourced Services (APCOS) with an intention to streamline the appointments who have been working under various modes like outsourcing, contract and daily wages and to create transparent, accountable and sustainable outsourcing ecosystem in the State. It is stated that, duly recognizing the services of the Petitioners by the Respondents, in the month of July 2020, the Petitioners who were working in the Government General Hospital, Kurnool through the agency were merged into the said Corporation vide Placement Intimation Letter PL No. PIL- DC-KNL-003672- 230420210504 dtd. 23/4/2021. Thereafter, surprisingly, the 5th respondent vide Proceedings in Rc. No. SPL/18 dtd. 30/10/2021 terminated the Petitioners from the services, which is invalid under law as the Housekeeping Services has agency Nakshatra no role in employment of the Petitioners, as such, the Proceedings issued by the 5th Respondent has no legal sanctity. Questioning the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.