The High Court · 2025

5. Sangi Srisailam, S/o. llaiah, Aged about 47 yea,s, Occ- Daily Wage Worker All the petitioners are working as Daily Wage Worker in Sri Laxminarasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Yadagirigutta, (Yadadri Bhuvanagiri) Nalgonda District. ..,PETITIONERS AND 1 Smt.Shailaja Ramaiyer, lAS, Principal Secretary, Endowment Department, 2 J Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad, Telangana. Sri.M.Hanumantha Rao, lAS, Commissioner of Endowments, Telangana, Hyderabad. Sri.A.Bhaskar Rao, Executive Officer, Sri Laxminarasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Yadagirigutta, Nalgonda District. ... RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI PRATAP NARAYANAN SANGHI representing SRI NAYAKAWADI RAMESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : GP for ENDOWMENT Counsel forthe Respondent No.3 : SRI CH SATISH KUMAR, SC The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA CONTEMPT CASE No.869 OF 2024 ORDER: Heard Sri Pratap Narayanan Sanghi, learned senior designated counsel representing Sri Nayakawadi Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners on record, learned Government Pleader for Endowment appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Sri Ch.Satish Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3.

2. The petitioners approached the Court complaining violation of the orders of this Court, dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.276O2 of 2OL9. PERUSED THE RECORD:

3. The Court disoosed of the Writ Petition vide its order, dated O6.12.2(J22 oassed in W.P.No. 276(J2 ot 2019 observinq as under:- "17. Taking into consideration, the above referred Facts and circumstances and in the light of the observations of the Apex Court in various judgments referred to and discussed above, the order impugned in Rc.No.c1l1993/2009, dated 06.08.2019 issued by the 2nd respondent and the respondents are directed to z consider the case of the petitioners for regularizations of the services of the petitioners duly taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments referred to and extracted above, since the petitioners herein are also entitled for similar treatment as was extended by the respondents herein in favour of 35 NMRs of the 3'd respondent temple whose services had been regularized and in whose favour G.O.Ms.No.76, dated 12.05.2017 was issued by the respondents herein and pass appropriate orders, in accordance to law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order and communicate the decision to the petitioners."

4. Learned Senior Designated counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that in compliance to the orders of this Court, dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.No. 27602 of 2OLg, the services of the 2nd petitioner had been regularized. The respondents however issued individual orders in respect of other four petitioners vide Rc.No.C/1933/2OO9, dated 2O,OL,2O25 in respect of 3'd petitioner, the proceedings issued, dated 2O.O1.2025 is extracted hereunder:- " Vide reference 4th cited you have submitted documents. As per the documents submitted by you, it is noticed that you do not possess any Educatlonal Qualifications. For Date of birth prooF you have submitted Aadhar card since you are illiterate. As per the Aadhar card and in accordance to the Affidavit filed in by you in the Hon'ble 3 Court, on our joining in the daily labour work is 08.04.L992, at the time of that year you were only 11 years old at that time and you have not acquired any Educational Qualifications. The details which you have submitted to this office was forwarded to the Government for taking further action in this matter as per Ref.5th cited above. After examining all the details i.e. Educational Qualifications, Age, Date of Birth proof, and the content in Government Order No.76, and the orders of the Hon'ble Court, vide reference 6th cited Government had issued a memo that your plea of regularization of your services cannot be considered, therefore, it is hereby informed that your service cannot be regularized. Similar such proceedings as above had been issued in respect of petitioner Nos. l, 4 and 5 as well individually.

5. Learned senior designated counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners referring to detailed speaking order passed by this court, dated O5.12.2O22 passed in W.P.No.276O2 of 2O19 which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2(J23, dated 1O.10.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court, dated O9.O8.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024 submits that the respondents committed willfu! disobedience of the orders of this Court, dated 4 O6.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.276O2 ot 2019 in issuing the proceedings, vide Rc.No.C1l1993/2OL9, dated 2O.OL.2O25 in compliance to the orders of this Court, dated O6.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.27602 of 2019.

6. Learned on the iudqments of the A x Court enlisted below in or des onated counsel D la ces reliance se n suoDort of oetitioners'case:- i) The State of Mysore and Another Vs. Syed Mahmood and Others reported in AIR 1968 SC 1113 and in particular para Nos. 5 & 6. ia) Jaggo Vs. Union of India, reported in 2024 SC 87O and in particular para Nos.l0, 16 & L7.

7. Learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 submits that there is no willful disobedience of the orders of this Court as alleged by the petitioners and the order had been complied with, and individual orders have been issued to the petitioner Nos. 1,3, 4 & 5 rejecting the request of the petitioners for 5 regularization indicating the specific reasons, and therefore, remedy of the petitioners is to challenging the said proceedings, dated 2O.OL.2O25 issued to the petitioners in compliance to the orders of this Court, dated O6.12.2022 passed in w.P.No.27602 ot 2OL9. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

8. This Court is convinced that the proceedings issued in compliance to the orders of this Court is not in true spirit of the orders of this Court and in fact there is a clear deliberate disobedience of the orders of this Court, dated O6.12.2O22 passed in W.P.No.276O2 ot 2019, since the pleas put-forth by the respondent vide proceedings dated 2O.O1.2025, rejecting petitioners' request for regularization are contrary to the observations of the various Apex Court judgments referred to in the judgment of this Court, dated O6.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.276O2 ot 2O19 and also this Court's own observations in the said judgment. This Court is of the firm opinion that the respondents did not consider the subject issue in the 6 light of its findings or observations of this Court as borne on record in its judgment, dated O6.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.276OZ ot 2019. 9 In the iudoment of the ADex Court in APSRTC and Ors. Vs. G.Sr inivas Reddv and Ors. re orted in AIR 2006 sc at Dara Nos. 13 and 13.3 of. the said iudqment, it is observed as under:-

13. We may, in this context, examine the significance and meaning of a direction given by the court to "consider" a case. When a court directs an authority to 'consider', it requires the authority to apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and then take a decision thereon in accordance with law. There is a reason for a large number of writ petitions filed in High Courts being disposed of with a direction to "consider" the cla imlca se/represe ntatio n of the petitioner,/s in the writ petitions.

13.3. Where the High Court finds the decision-making process erroneous and records its findings as to the manner in which the decision should be made, and then directs the authority to 'consider' the matter, the authority will have to consider and decide the matter in the light of its findings or observations of the court. But where the High Court without recording any findings, or without expressing any view, merely directs the authority to 'consider' the matter, the authority will have to consider the matter in accordance with law, with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case, its power not being circumscribed by any observations or findings of the court. 7

10. The ADex Court in the iudoment reoorted in 2Ot7 vol.S SCC 5O6 in Baranaqore Jute FactorvP LC. Ma zdoor Sanqh (BMS) and Others Vs. Barana oore Jute Factorv PLC. And Others, at para No.23 observed as under:- "23. As held bv this Court in DDA v. Skipper Construction co.(o.) Ltd., and qoinq a step further, the Court has dutv to issue approDriate directions for remedyinq or rectifvinq the thinqs done in violation of the orders. In that regard the Court mav even take restitutive measures at anv staoe of theEoce€dinqs."

11. This Court opines that the 3'd respondent herein did not apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and also ignored the relevant law and failed in its duty to consider and decide the subject issue in the light of the findings and observations as reflected in the order of this Court, dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.276O2 of 2O19. The 3'd respondent has a bounden duty and hence is obligated to rectify the mistakes done in implementation of the orders of this Court, dated O5.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.27602 of 2019 in clear violation of the orders of this Court, dated O6.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.27602 of 2019, as observed by the Apex Court in the two judgments (referred to and extracted above). L2. Takinq into c nsideration: - a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case b) The submissions made by the learned senior designated counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3. c) The order of this Court, dated O6.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.27602 ol 2OL9. d) The judgment of the Apex Court in APSRTC and Ors. Vs. G.Srinivas Reddy and Ors. reported in AIR 2OO5 SC 1465 (referred to and extracted above) e) The judgment of the Apex Court in Baranaqore Jute Eri^j.\ar., PL Ma dn;rr Cr n h ( BMS I and alf lraFG V ore Jute a PL .An Others R 2O17 vol.5 SCC 5O5 (referred to and extracted above) 9 The 3'd respondent is directed to remedy the mistakes done in implementing the orders of this Court, dated 06.12.2O22 passed in W.P.No.27602 of 2019 and reconsider the decision issued vide proceedings vide Rc.No.C/1933/2OO9, dated 20.OL.2025 of the 3"r respondent to the petitioner Nos.l, 3, 4 & 5 within a period of two (O2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order, duly taking into consideration the view of the Apex Court in the judgments (referred to and extracted above) and duly comply with the orders of this Court, dated 06.12.2(J22 passed in W.P.No. 27602 of 2OL9 as per the findings arrived at in the said judgment as per the observations of the Apex Court judgments in the said judgment and as per the relevant law quoted in the said judgment and also this Court's own observations in its iudgment dated 06.12.2lJ22 passed in W.P.No.276O2 of 2OL9 and comply with the specific directions of this Court, dated O6.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.276O2 of 2019 in its true spirit within a period of three (O3) weeks from the date l0 of receipt of copy of the order, duly rectifying all the mistakes done by the 3'd respondent in implementing the orders of this Court, dated O6.12.2O22 passed in W.P.No.27602 of 2OL9.

13. With these above direction, the Contempt Case is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed SDi. I. NAGA LAKSHMI JOINT REGISTRAR Note: This order is amended as Per the Court order dated 22-04-2025 made in l.A.No.'1 of 2025 by correcting as the "petitioner Nos.1,3,4 & 5" instead of "petitioner Nos.1,2,4 & 5 in para No-12, line No.6 in page No.9. This order substitutes the earlier order despatched on 16-04-2025. //TRUE COPY// SD/. I. NAGA LAKSHMI JOINT REGISTRAR SEC OFFICER To,

1. Smt.Shailaja Ramaiyer, lAS, Principal Secretary, Endowment Department, Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad, Telangana.

2. Sri.ft/.Hanumantha Rao, lAS, Commissioner of Endowments, Telangana, Hyderabad.

3. Sri.A.Bhaskar Rao. Executive Officer, Sri Laxminarasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Yadagirigutta, Nalqonda District.

4. One CC to SRI NAYAKAWADI RAMESH, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CCs to the GP for ENDOWI\,4ENT, High Court for tlre State of Telangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

6. One CC to SRI CH SATISH KUIVAR,SC [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies \ At)K W, HIGH COURT DATED:1010312025 2210412025 AMENDED ORDER CC.No.869 of 2024 I ii r; \., r --..-=' ?u- - _ ..;'i'r.AE - (" , - \. 05 rljs m6 * cI si.., ( z Ll -\ -.r, .4 f ( DISPOSING OF THE CONTEMPT CASE WITHOUT COSTS ?"\ Id x