Court at Hyclerabad by relying on Srinivasulu and others vs Nellore ,lunicipal Corporation directed the respon(ients to

Petition ur der Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumsl:ances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be p,leased to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for grantirrg pension and retiremental benefits by granting retrospective regularization from the date of completion of 5'reat; as per law laid down by the Honourable Strpreme Court in Civil Appeal No 0318/2015, dt.171812015, as followed by this Honourable Court in WP No.3393612(111 ztnd Batch dt. 21512018 Reported in 2018 (4) ALT 6 pending final disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the ,etitioner: SRI P.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY Cgunsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR SERVICES-I C5unsel for the lespondent Nos.3 & 4: SRI RAMESH CHILLA, S'l FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.18751 OF 2021 ORDER: Heard Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionei and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents,

2. The petitioner approached the Court seekinq Draver as under ".......to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in damage of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not granting pension and retiremental benefits by granting retrospective regularization from the date of completion of 5 years of service as per the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6378/2015, dt 17/8/2075 the same has been follows by this Honourable Court in WP. No. 33936/20t1 and Batch dt 2/5/2AlB Rei>oi-ted in 201E (4) ALT 6 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and ccnsequently direct the respondents to sanction and pay the pension and retiremental benefits as per the law iaid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6318/2015, dt L7/8/2015 the same has been follows by this Honourable Court in WP. No. 33936/2011 and Batch dt 215/20L8 Reported in 2018, (4) ALT 6 and pass....." "I 2

3. It ir; the specific grievance of the petitioner that the petition€rr vuas appointed as Bill collector on daily wage basis on 05.11.1987 in erstwhile Alwal municipalit,/ which subsequ 3ntl,/ merged into Municipal Corporation, H'yderabad in the ye€rr 2007. Thereafter the governmeni: issued GOMs.Nrr.533,MA and UD dated 29.11.2077 regularizing the services of t1e petitioner prospectively but not retrospectively from the dal.e of completion of 5 years of daily wag: service by the p:titirtner herein. The petitioner further submil:s that in similar circurnstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Srinivasrrlu ;rnd others vs. Nellore Municipal Corporation held that dail/ wage workers who were regularized are entiUed to retrospe,:tiv€ regularization from the date of comple[ion of 5 years for the purpose of seniority and other benr::fits and Andhra f)rad:sh government had implemented the directions given by Hon'ble Supreme Court but the respondent.s herein however diC not implement the said directions. Th€ petitioner further submits that this Hon'ltle High Court at Hyclerabad by relying on Srinivasulu and others vs Nellore ,lunicipal Corporation directed the respon(ients to 3 implement the retrospective regularization of service for the purpose of seniority, pension and other benefits but respondents are not implementing the above directions by citing that the Srinivasulu and others vs Nellore Municipal Corporation dated 17.08.2015 relied on M.L.Singh case judgment had been overruled by the Apex court in Manjula Bashini case reported in 2009 (4) SCC 431. Aggrieved by said action of the respondents, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present Writ Petition. ED THE RE RD

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition in view of the fact as borne on record that the said relief as sought for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition had been granted by the Dlvision Bench of this Court vide its order, dated

06.03.2017 passed in W.P.No. 4t797 of 2015 in respect of other individuals similaily situated persons like the petitioner herein and the said judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 06.03.2017 passed in W.P.No.41797 of 2015 had 4 been urhelJ by the Apex Court in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Ccrporation represented by its Commission_.r & Ors Vs. P.L ngaTlma and Others vide its judgmenl:, dated 23.07.2( 24 in SLp.No.13813 of 2018 and therefcre, the petitioner herein is entiiled for the relief as prayed for by the petitione- in :he present Writ petition.

5. Learnecl counsel appearing on behalf oF the petitioner further s tbmits that as per law laid down by the Apt:x Court in civil A rpeerl No.631B of 2oL5, dated 17.08.2015 which had been follrwerl by this Court in w.p.Nos. 33936 of 2()11 and batch, dated 02.05.2019 reported in 2018 (4) ALT 6, the petitioner cannot be denied relief as prayed for in the present Writ Petit on in respect of the claim of the petitioner fi>r grant of pension and reitremental benefits by (tranting retrospect ive regularization from the date of complt:tion of five (05) 1.ea.r; of service.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits |rat the petitioner retired on 30.06.20r.3 as Biil collector ; nd r;ince, the pension is continuous cause of action and since the said relief was extended for similarly s tuated 5 persons, the petitioner approached this Court soon after obtaining knowledge, however the relief extended to similarly situated persons had been refused to the petitioner in the present Writ Petition on the ground that petitioner approached the Court by filing the present Writ Petition after seven years after petitioner's retirement.

7. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand submits that the petitioner had not been diligent in approaching this Court promptly. B. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents in support of his submission placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 03.02.2025 passed in W.P.No. 36516 of 2024 and contended that in view of the inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court for the relief prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ Petition, the Present writ petition need to be dismissed in limini. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- 6 9 The relevant portion of the jgdqment , dated 06.O3.2C17- passed in W.P.No.4l797 of 2015 is extractr:d hereunder:- " In ':he light of this authoritativb pronouncement by tii(r Si..rpreme Court, as recently as in August, :2015, on th<: ,s;sue of regularization of service:; under G.t).Mr;.No.212, dated 22.04.7994, we have no he;itation in holding that the Tribunal erred In denying rel ef tr the petitioners herein insofar as their ,:laim for rectular ization from an anterior date was concerned. Th':y r,,rould therefore be entitled to regularir:ation of thr,ir s:rvices From the date they completed five years of serVice but would noi be entitled. to any r'tonetary be refits in terms of arrears of pay. They would however be eliqible for notional iixation of pay and seniority. 1O. Thr: Division Bench of this Court in its iudqment, reporterl in 2018(4) ALT 6 in W.P.No.33936/ 2011 & batch, dated O2.05.2018 n Government of A.P represe r bv its Princioal Secretarv. PR Departtrrenl Hvderabad and others Vs. N. Venkaiah and Others, dealinq with the case of the reqularization of the services and referrinq to the aspect of the delav observe d-a=s--uoCer.: " We find it difficult to accept the reasoning ad,)pted by the High Court. The right of the appellants to seek regularization flows from the G.O.No.212, dated 22.O4.L994. The appellant have \, 7 sN,, been in service of the first respondent not only prior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subseqeutn to the issue of G.O. till today. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O.212(supra). In spite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularizing the services of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellant. In the circumstances, refusing the benefat of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in oirr opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appea! is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' services be regularized with effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Collector/Chairperson and others Vs. M.L.Singh and others (2009) 8 SCC 480, The appeal is accordingly disposed of."

11. Praver sou ht for bv similarlv situated Dersons like the oetitroner in W.P.No.9O24 of 20 17 is extracted o hereu nd er: - ".......to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring that the petitioners are entitled for regularization from the date of completion of 5 years of service if necessary by setting aside he GORI.No.97, MA, dt 29.2.2016 only to the extent of prospective regularization instead of regularization from the date of completion of 5 years for the purpose oF seniority as held by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 6318/2015 dt 17.8.2015 and as per the judgment of this Honble Court in WP 20635/20L2 dt \ 'l 8

31.1.:i)I7 and pass such other order or orders as this Honble court may deem fit and proper in the cir:um 3tances of the cds€;.."

12. PE5i1 No.13 of the iudqment dated 13.t2.2022 in W.P.N .9024 of 20 LTise passed hereu n _13. Taking irlto consideration all the above referred facts and circumstitnces and the law laid down in the various judgments referred to and discussed above, the writ petition is allowed declaring thert the petitioners are entitled for regularization from the date of completion of five years of service and he impugne,l C;,O.Rt.No.97 MA, dated 29.O2.2016 is set aside only to tlre et(tent of prospective regualarize the servir:e of the petitione's fr-om date of completion of five years for the purpose tf s<:niority as held by the Apex Court in Civ I Appeal No.6318 of 2015, dated 17.08.2015 and as per the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.20635 of ZOtz, dated 31.01.2017, within a lerlod of four (04) weeks from the date of rr:ceipt of copy of t ris order, duly taking into consideration the law laid down by th€, various judgments referred to and extracted above. It is however, made clear that the petitioners :;hall not be entitle d tc the monetary benefits for the said period in the form of errears of pay or allowances and the respondents are directed to extend the benefit extended in (:ase of B.Sriniva;ulu vs. Nellore Municipal Corporailon to the petitioners by regularizing their services from the date of completic n or' five years of their services for the purpose of their se tiority pension and other pensionary Denefits. However, the-e shall be no order as to costs. L T he learned Government Pleader for Ser.vices-I aDo a rins_ di sDU the fac t that t eo resent relief ha 9 extended to similarlv situa d oersons. but on the onlv qround that the Detitaoner aDoroached this urt after se t etiti n ulariza n lea rned Government Pleader for Services-I contends that Detitioner herein is n entitled for the relief as oraved for in the Dresent Writ Petition. L4. A bare oerusal fo t e averments ma e in the cou nter affidavit filed on behalf of the resoondent Nos.3 & 4 indicates that the services of the etitioner had been reqularized vide oroceedin o of the 3"1 resoondent dated 12.O1.2OL2 and oetitioner retired from service on 30,05.2013 on attaininq the aqe of suDerannuation.

15. This Court ooines th t the oetitioner cannot be denied the relief as extended to other similarlv situated persons on the oround of delav since delav cannot ul wh nl m petltioner's fundamental riqhts. The ADex Court in the iudqment reported in 2O22 SCC Online SC 232 in Sunil l0 Kumer Ban & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others dt. 2L. 2.2 022 at Paras T, 8. 110-11, observed as under : Pa'a 7: Article 32 of the Constitution provioes For a Fu rdarnental Right to approach the Supreme tlourt for en'orcement of the Fundamental Rights. The founding fathers contemplated that the very right to approach this (-()urt when there is a violation of Fundamental Rig hts, should be declared as beyond the reach of Pa''liarrent and, therefore, it is as a part o1' judicial i-eview that the right under Article 32 has be€)n put in place and invoked from time to time. That in a given car;e, the Court may refuse to entertain a petitiln under Ar1 icle: 32 of the Constitution is solely a part of self- res trairt which is exercised by the Court having regard to various considerations which are germane to the int3rest of justice as also the appropriateness of the Coirrt ':o interfere in a particular case. The right under Arl icler 32 of the Constitution remains a Fundamental Ri! ht .rnd it is always open to a person complaining of vic lation of Fundamental Rights to approach this Court. Th s is, no doubt, subject to the power of the Court to rel:gate the party to other proceedings. Pa-a B : At the heart of the Constitution lieri certain prirciples which have, in fact, been recognisecl as part of thc basic structure. Article 14 of the Constitution proclairs right to equality. The right againr;t unfair Stirte .rction is part of Article 14. Unequals being treated eqrali! is tabooed under Afticle 14 of the Constitution. A pe-:ion entitled to be treated as a member of Sc reculed Tribe under Article 342, cannot be treated on pa - wil h a pe!-son who is brought in by an incompetent BoTy , viz., the State in the manner done. Arti,:le 21 of thtr Cc,nstitution again is the fountain head of many riglts which are part of the grand mandate which has be:n fr-om time to time unravelled by this Court giving ris,: tc the theory of unenumerated rights urder the Cclstitution. While liberty is a dynamic concept: capable of encompassing within it a variety of Rights, the l1 irreducible minimum and at the very core of liberty, is freedom from unjustifia ble custody.

10. We may take up the first preliminary objection by the State, namely, that the petitioners have approached this Court with considerable delay,. The impugned Notification is issued in August, 2016. A person cannot be said to be aggrieved merely upon the issuance of an instrument or of a law by itself. In fact, the Court may refuse to examine the legality or the validity of a law or order on the basis that he may have no locus standi or that he is not an aggrieved person, No doubt, the Courts have recognized challenge to even a legislation at the hands of a public interest litigant. However, we may only indicate, ordinarily, the Court may insist on a cause of action and therefore, a person must be an aggrieved party to maintain a challenge. We must not be oblivious to the fact that based on the Notification, it appears that FIRs came to be lodged by persons claiming to be members of the Scheduled Tribe community and seeking to invoke the 1989 Act. The FIRs lodged in the year 2020 occasioned the petitioners to approach Courts seeking protection under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Two of the petitioners have not secured such protection. Petitioner No. 1, it appears was not arrested. But even assuming for a moment, that the petitioners have come with some delay, we find reassurance from the opinion of this Court in the judgment reported in Assam Sanmilita Mahasan qha v Union of India (201s) 3 SCC I, wherein this Court has inter alia held as follows:- Olga Tellis v. it has now been ntal ri en th the tm ersona I thout more rrrlren at aarrYrae +ar fundamenta! rioht to life and libertv, dela v or laches bv itself w

32. ".....Further, in Bombay Municipal Corpn., t= ra2o\ ts in th rrin la + ortant d come for hi at 6 r't ar+ be waivaA (al at all f n nclusiv h+ G I t2 rrrould not be sufficie nt to shut the doors of the court on anv oetitioner." f

11. Th ere ore- we do not think we shcruld he detained bv the obiection. We would think that de Iav llv itself cannot be used a s a r,\reaDon to Veto nd r Article 32 w nvt an ac Fu,ndarnental Riqhts is clearlv at stake. n

16. Ta_kjsg into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstancesr of the ca!;e. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel apoearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Govei-rrment Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The judgment of this Court, in Government of A,[r. representing by its Principal Secretary, PR an,l RD Oepartment, Hyderabad and others Vs. N.\/enkaiah and others, dated O2.05.2018 passed in WIr.Ns. 33936 of 2O11 & batch reported in 2O18 ri4) ALT page 6. (referred to and extracted a b'f,ve ) d) The judgment of the Division Bench of this Co,urt, dated O6.O3.2017 passed in W.P.N<r.4L797 13 SN, J of 2015 which had been upheld by the Apex Court in Greater Hyderabad Municipat Corporation represented by its Commissioner & Ors. Vs. P.Lingamma and Others vide its judgment, dated

23.07.2024 in SlP.No.13813 of 2O18 (referred to and extracted above) e) The judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6318 ol 2015, dated O7.08.2015. The A Cou rt m tre o22 S Onl ine SC 232 in Sunil Kuma r Rai & Oth rs Vs. t , State of Bih ar & Others. The Writ petition is allowed as prayed for, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for granting pension and retiremental benefits by granting retrospective regularization from the date of completion of five (05) years, duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the judgments (referred to and extracted above) and all other judgments through which the said relaef had been I i I 14 exl:ended to similarly situated persons like the petitioner (referred to and extracted above) within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of reo:ipt of copy of the order. However, there shrrll be no order as to costs. 14iscellaneous petiticns, if any, pending in l.his Writ Petition, shall stand closed. I That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL, on this THURSDAY, THE TWEINTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE //TRUE COPY// SD/. P.PADMANABHA REPD DEPUTY REGITRA Y R q/ SEGTION OFFICER 1 . The Prl. Secrelary, MA and UD Department, Secretariat Buildings, 2. The Prl. Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Secrel:ariat Buildings, Hyderaba l, State of Telangana. Hvderaba l. State of Telanoana. T6e Comrnissicner, Greate-r Hyderabad Municipal Corporatio r. Hyderabad. The Deputy Commissioner, Alwal Circle NO.27, GHMC, Hydt:rabad. ONE CC t(iSRI P.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, AdVOCAIC [OPUC] Two CCs to G r FOR SERVICES-|, High Court for the State cf Telangana, at HyderabaJ. [OUT] OhC CC t() SRI RAMESH CHILLA, SC FOR GHMC [OPUC] Two CD (;opres To J 4 E o 7 o PSK. PSK HIGH GOURT DATED:20 t'0312025 ORDER vtp.ruo.t B7's1 of 2021 CC TODAY (ir: Sl'4Iei 21 APn m25 c o U ,... ..-',, '... i\ [) , .:()

2. i' ,' lv- (( ?. .(.: t ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS L) )