The High Court · 2025

N.Sridhar, lAS, Principal Secretary to Govt., Scheduled Caste Development Dept., State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. (R2 impleaded as per Court Order dtd.20.06.2025 in lA No.1/2025 in CC No.1638/2024). ... Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI D BALA KISHAN RAO Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : SRI BHANOTHU HUSSAIN The Court made the following: ORDER I I I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI CONTEMPT CASE No.1638 OF 2024 ORDER: Alleging willful and deliberate disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 31.O8.2023 in W.P.No.2422I of 2023, this Contempt Case is filed. Subsequently, uide i.A.No.1 of 2025, respondent No.2 is also impleaded in the writ petition

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as an Attender on contract b.rsis uide proceedings dated 21.O4.2OO6 and though several other contract employees were regularized, his case was not considered for regularization in terms of G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 26.02.2016. Therefore, he has filed a writ petition vide W .P.No.24221 of 2023 and this Court uide orders dated 3l .Oa.2023 had directed respondent No.2 to take a decision on the request of the petitioner to regularize his services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.16 and within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. In spite of lapse of more than a year, the order of this Court was not complied with. Hence, the Contempt Case has been fded.

4. Respondent No.2 in the writ petition, who is Contemnor No.1 in this Contempt Case, has filed a counter aflidavit stating that the I 2 petitioner had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.2337l of 2019 before this Court seeking relief of regularization of service for the post of Attender in the quota ol lald donation to an extent of Ac.2.O7 gts for constmction of Bridge School, which is taken over by respondent No.2 - Society and that the writ pbtition was disposed of ui-d.e order dated 2a.1O.2019 directing respondent No. 1- Principal Secretary to Government to consider the recommendations made by respondent No.2 on 12.10.2013 and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and further, urde letters dated

25.O2.2O2O and 22.OL.2O23 a-lso, the proposals of the petitioner were sent to Government with a request to issue appropriate orders as it is a policy decision and the Government is the competent auttrority to take a decision, as there was no provision in Service Rules of TGSWREIS for providing regular employment to the land donators. It is stated that uide letter dated 25.07.2023, the Government ui.de Govt. Letter dated 76.01.2014 had informed that it has already examined the request of the petitioner and informed that providing regular employment to the individual is not feasible for acceptance and that he can be provided with a job on outsourcing basis only. 3

5. It is further submitted that the petitioner has filed W.P.No.2422l of 2023 before this Court and this Court uide orders dated 31.08.2023, directed respondent No.2 to consider the proposal of respondent No.3 in accordance with the directions of this Court. Vide letter dated 28.11.2023, respondent No.2 in the writ petition had sent the proposal to the Government for issuance of necessary directions. Further letters were also addressed on

27.O5.2024 and 23.1O.2024 to furnish related files in respect of the petitioner. It is stated that the case of the petitioner was duly considered and his plea for regularization of service on regular basis in Class-4 cadre cannot be implemented and the same was informed to the petitioner utde ietter dated 13.02.2025

6. Further, the learned Standing Counsel has also forwarded the copy of the letter dated 23 .O8.2O25, addressed to the Government wherein the above facts are mentioned and it is stated tleat uil.e letter dated 25.01.2025, the request of the petitioner was refused and the same has been communicated to the petitioner as rvel1.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the course of hearing, when it was pointed out that respondent No.2- Secretary is not competent to take a decision in this matter, the said letter dated 25.01.2025 has been withdrawn and the 4 Government has been taking time for getting instructions from time to time. B. Learned Government Pleader for Services-ill has produced a copy of the letter dated 31.10.2025 rejecting the case of the petitioner for consideration on the ground that the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.lO744, 11643, 13223 and 14300 of 2023 and W.P.(Tr) No.5972 of 2Ol7 on 19.11.2024 has held that the contract employees cannot be regularized. However, it is noticed that the Division Bench has held that the contractual employees, who have already been regularized need not be terminated.

9. Learned Government Pleader submitted that in view of the above decision, the case ol the petitioner cannot, now be considered for regularization and it is for the petitioner to challenge these proceedings, if he so aggrieved.

10. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court hnds that the petitioner was admittedly not paid compensation for donating the land of Ac.2-O7 gts for the school and in lieu of compensation, he had requested for a job and was given a job on contract basis, as Attender. It is stated by the petitioner that similarly placed contract employees have been regrlarized in terms of G.O.Ms.No.16, dated 26.02.2016 ald the ' --.^t/ // 5 petitioner's name was also recommended and therefore, this Court had directed the respondent to consider the same and to pass I appropriate orders thereon. It is also not in dispute that the respondents trave not challenged the orders of this Court and therefore it has become final. Had the respondents taken steps to implement the directions of this Court within the time granted, the judgment of the Division Bench also would have helped the petitioner only. The respondents have sat on the file and did not take any decision thereon inspite of lapse of more tlr,an 2 years and therefore, the petitioner has been deprived of his opportunity of getting his job regularized. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents have committed contempt and therefore, they are liable for punishment. From the communication protluced before this Court dated 3l .1O.2025, it appears that the direction was given to the respondents in the writ petition to take a decision and inform the petitioner, if it is not feasible to regularize his services. In the afternoon session, the order passed by respondent No. 1 in the writ petition i.e., Secretary to the Government dt.3 1. 10.2025 is filed. 1 1. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the respondents have committed Contempt of Court and are liable for punishment. However, in the interest of justice, further period of 6 two (O2) months is given for implementation of the order, failing which, respondents No.1 and 2 shall be punishable for imprisonment for a period of two (O2) months and a-lso fine of Rs.2,O00/- each. in default, they shal1 undergo imprisonment of one (O1) week under Sections 1O and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act In case, due to the decision ol the Division Bench of this Court, if the respondents are not able to implement the order of this Court, they shall be liable to bear the costs of litigation and shall pay compensation of Rs.1,O0,000/- to the petitioner.

12. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. N. SRI DEPUTY RE //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. Smt. Alugu Versini, lAS, Secretary, Telangana State Social Welfare Residential Educational Society, Masabtank, Hyderabad

2. N.Sridhar, lAS, Principal Secretary to Govt., Scheduled Caste Development Dept., State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad

3. Ohe CC to SRI D BALA KISHAN RAO, Advocate IOPUCI 4. One CC to SRI BHANOTHU HUSSAIN, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies M ADK I HIGH COURT TMD,J DATED:1711112025 ORDER CC.No.1638 of 2024 ,e 1 t1i: S TA I \.) C C) 2 B JAtl 2O2E a) + r !.- r] DISPOSING OF THE CONTEMPT CASE 'x Lb