" " \v/ M v. ptanning Departmdnt

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by decraring the action of the respondents in not considering the I' l ,l l ,'l I case of the petitioners for regularization of their services as per G.o.Ms.No.143, lrrigation (ser.v) Department, dt. 16to3t14, notionally on completion of 5 years of service, as was done in case of similarly placed persons to whom the 1st respondent has issued G.o.Rt.No. 331, I and cAD, dt.08/09i2021 and G.o.Rt.No. 76, I and cAD, d1.24l0312023, as illegar, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 2 j of constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their servicris as per G.o.Ms.No.143, lrrigation (ser.v) Department, dt. 16to3l}4, notionally on completion of Syears of service, as well as the Judgments of this Honourable court irr w.P.No.17382 of 2021 and w.p.No.5001 of 2022 and batch dt.3ol10l2o24, and Honourabre Supreme court, by passing orders on the representation of the petitioner dt.2811112024, with all consequential benefits. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services as per G.o.Ms.No.143, lrrigation (Ser.V) Department, dt.16/03/g4, notionally on completion of Syears of service, as well as the Judgments of this Honourable court in w.P.No.17382 of 2o21 and w.p.No.5001 of 2022 and batch dt.30l1ol2o24, and Hon'ble Supreme Court, by passing orders on the representation of the petition er dt.2\l11l2o24, pending final disposal of the writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 TO 6: Gp FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.7: Gp FOR SERVICES_II| The Court made the following: ORDER l - THE HON'BLE SRI ]USTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO I ORDER WRIT PETIT1ON No.451O oF 2025 Heard Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Iearned Government pleader for Services-I far respondent Nos.1 to 6 and learneo Government pleader for Services-III for respondent No.7. perused the material on record. 2, Brief facts of the case are that the petitior;._rs were appointed as Non-Muster Roll (NMR) in the year 1983 for the Nagarjuna Saqar Dam project and have been consisten y performing their duties to the satisfaction of the higher authorities. Currenfly, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are working as NMR Lascars, while petitioner No.4 is working as a Pump Operator. Despite their continuous service, they were not allowed to discharge theii- duties, lvhich led them to file W.P.Nos.97lBB, 793/87, and 5)B/87 before the Hon,ble Supreme Court. Pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the authorities reinstated the petitioners in different :apacities between the different dates in the year 2008-2011 respectively as NMRs.

3. It is submitted that the petitioners, having completed over 30 years of servlce (with rtore than 11-13 years after their reinstatement), are entitled to regularization 3s per G.O.Ms.No.143,, 'dated 16-03.1984, which hari previousrl. regularized the services of I -i I // i similarry situ3ted indi viduals after five years of service. However, despite multipre representatio ns, inciuding the iast representation dated 28.08.2023, the respondents have not considered the petitioners, request for rsgul6r176tion. ThereFore, the respondents, action in denlzing the petitioners regurarization is discriminatory, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 o drru 1o of the constitution of India.

4. It is further submitted that the petitioners filed W.p.No.9211 of 2A24 dated 10 04'2024' before this Court. seeking directions for the regularization of their services as per C.O.fqs.fVo.f+a, ;","; 16'03'1984' This court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' representations and pass appropr,ate orders within a period of eight (B) weeks fi-om the date of ":" * receipt of the order. However, the respondenr. ,, ,-, .^ dents failed to comply with this directive. Additionaiiy, the ,etitioners referred to W. p. i\ ilc 5001 of 2022 and batch, dated 30.10. 2024, wherein this Court directed the regularization of similarly situated persons. However. the respondents have expressed that the petitioners, case is not the same due to the iack oF simi,ar orders from this Hon,ble Court. as was granted in W.p No.50Ot of 2o2l,dated 30.10.2024. 5. On 28.11.2024, representation to the respondents, the petitioners submitted another requesting the consideration of I I ,ry -j their services for regularization. However, Iearned Government pleader raised an objection that the representation given on 2B.11.2024 contains signatures of other persons and is not in continuation of the representation. at this juncture, the

6. In view of the above submjssions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, without going into the merits of the case, this Writ petition js disposed of, directing the respondents to dispose of the representation made by the petitioners on 28.LL.2024, if any, within a period of eight (B) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, duiy tak;ng into consideraiion the undertaking given by the Government before the Hon,ble supreme Court that the petitioners therein, including the petitioners herein, will be given preference for absorption in any future vacancies that may arise after adjusting the surplus persons, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscelianeous a pplica tions pending, if any, this Writ Petition, shall stand closed i I I \ To //TRUE COPY// SD/.T. TIRUMALA DEVI A S TANT REGISTRAR I SECTION OFFICER 1 2 |) 4 5 The Principal Secretary, lrrigation and CAD Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, State of Telang ana -SOOO22. The Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation and CAD Department, Erramanzil, State of I elangana, Hyderabad-500 082. The Chief Engineer, lrrigation and CAD Department, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. The Superintending Engineer, lrrigation Circle, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. The Chief Engineer, lrrigation and CAD Departmenl, Suryapei Suryapet District. 7 6- The Superintending Engineer, lrrigation Circle, Kodada, Suryapet District. 7. The Principal Secretary. Finance and Planning Department. Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, State of Telangana -50OO22-

8. One Ce to sRl A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-|, High Court for the State of Telangana, at l0.Trjvo CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-I|I, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Hyderabad. [OUT] 'l 1.Two CD Copies PSK. BSI / l HIGH COURT DATED:17101212025 t \ ORDER WP.No.4510 of 2025 t I t oR THE ) 6 .) L o't 20FIE 20t5 tt' !. a' a l_'1. q r'a 1-1- ,,.1 ; rr :-- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ^ ",r-i.t Qt)"l',b-- 6Vr