High Court · 2025

lS.Smt.C.Sandamma,Wlo Late C.Sundararn, aged about 53 years, Working as Public Health Worker, Circle No.23, Moosapet, GHMC, Hyderabad.

19.N.Dasarath, S/o Late N.ltlallaiah, aged about 58 years, Working as Non- Public Health Worker, Circle No.23, [Vloosapet, GHMC, Hyderabad.

20.R.Srinivas, S/o Late R.Yettaiah, aged about 56 years, Working as Public Health Worker, Circle No.23, Moosapet, GHMC, Hyderabad. 2l.P.Bikshapathi, S/o Late P.Laxmaiah, aged about 53 years, Working as Non- Public Health Worker, Circle No.23, Moosapet, GHMC, Hyderabad.

22.Smt.B.Chennamma, W/o Late B.Kurmaiah, aged about 53 years, Working as Public Health Worker, Circle No.23, Moosapet, GHMC, Hyderabad.

23.Smt.A.Narsamma, Wo Late A.Durgaiah, aged about 51 years, Working as Public Health Worker, Circle No.24,Kukatpally, GHMC, Hyderabad.

24.Smt.R.Pushpa, W/o R.Shankar, aged about 54 years, Working as Public Health Worker, Circte No.24,Kukatpally. GHMC, Hyderabad.

25.M.Krisf1g, S/o Late M.chithari, aged about 55 years, working as Public Health Worker, Circle No.24,Kukatpally, GHMC, Hyderabad.

26.Smt.K.B-hagyamrna, Wo Late K.Mallaiah. aged about 52 years, Working as Public Health Worker, Circle No.24,Kukatpally. GHMC, Hyderabad.

27.Smt.C.Sukkamma, w/o Late c.Hanumanthu, aged about 54 years, Working as Public Health Worker, Circle No 24, Kukatpally, GHMC, Hyd-erabad. 2S.T.Bikshqpathi, S/o Late T.tv'lallaiah, aged about 54 years, Working as Non- Public Health Worker. Circle No 24. Kukatpally. GHMC, Hyderabad.-

29.T.Manaiah, S/o. Late T.Ramaiah, aged acout 55 years, Working as Fublic Health Worker, Circle No.24, Kukaically, GHMC, Hyderabad.

30.Smt.B.Susheela, v//o Late B.Ramesh.aged about 54 years, working as Public Health Worker. Circle No 2{. Kr.ikatpally, GHMC, Hyderabad.

31.A.Lingam, S/o. Late A.Sayul,:, acout 53 years, \A/orking as Public Health Worker, Circle No.24, Kukatpail;', GHl,1C, Hyderabad. =ge4

32.Smt.G.Saidamma, w/c Late G So:raiah. aged about 54 years, Working as Public Health \l/orker', Circle lJo 2,i Kukatpally. GHl,4C, Hyderabad.

33.Smt.P.Beemamma, Wio P.Basalah. aged about 54 years, Working as Public Health Worker, Circle No.24, Kuxaipaily. GFli\,'!C,, Hyderabad.

34.J_.Ramulu, S/O. Late J.Pentaiah. aged about 59 years, Working as Waterman, Circle No.24, Kukatpally, GHiVC. Hyderabad.

35.A.Ramesh, S/o Late A.Somaiah, aged about 53 years, Working as Non-Public Health Worker, Circle No 24. Kukatpally. GHivlC, Hyderabad.

36.Smt.K.Manemma, w/o Late K.tulallesh, aEed about 55 years, working as Public Health Wcrker, Circle No 2,1. Kukatpatty. GHIUC, Hyderabad. 3T.Smt.C.Varalakshmi, w/o Ch.Sudarshan, aged aboul 52 years, Working as Public Health Worker. Circle No 24 Kukatpatty. GHIMC, Hyd-erabad.

38.smt.S.Yadamma, w/o Late Lakshmaiah. aged about 54 years, working as Public Health Worker, Circle No.24, Kukatpalty. GHMC, Hyderabad

39.Smt.K.Muthamma. wio Late K.Narsimha, aged about 56 years, Working as Public Health Worker, Circle No 24. Kukatpally, GHiUC, Hyderabad.

40.Smt.E.Lakshrni, W/o Late E.Shankar, aged about 52 years, Working as Public Health Worker, Circle No.24. Kukatpally, GHMC, Hyderabad.

41. P.Sudarshan Kumar, S/o Late P.Babulal, aged about 54 years, Working as Senior Assistant, Circle No.26, Gajularamaram, GHMC, Hyderabad.

42.P.Kumara Swamy, S/o Late P.Ganesh, aged about 53 years, Working as Non-Public Health Worker (Electrical), Circle No.2l,Chandanagar, GHMC, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS AND 1, The State of Telangana, rep.by its Prl.Secretary, MA and UD Department, Secretariat Build ings, Hyderabad 2 3 4 The State of Telangana, rep.by its Prl.Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, rep.by its Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner, Kukatpally Circle, GHMC, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances statad in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ Orier"or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by Jeclar;ng the action of the respondents in not granting retrospective regular:za:;on tc the petitioners from the date of completion of 5 years on or befcre 25,i1i1993 foi counting of NMR service rendered prior tc regulai'izatio;': o; pe::i;.>r::: se,'',:a3 fol the purpose of pension and pensic,ta;',,' benefits as held a1 ti:: ii.;;rci: Supr:me Court in Civil Appeal No.6318i2i15 dt.1718t2015 as fcirc'*':C Dy tne combined Honble AP High Court in WP No.3393612011 anC B:i:h Ct. 215t2018 (Reported in 2018 4 ALT P.6) is iliegal, arbitrary and voilativ.; oi the prii"'rcipies of natural justice and consequentiy direct the respondents to grant retrospective regularization from the date of completion of 5 years on or before 25111i1993 for the purpose of pension and pensionai'y benefits as held by the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.631812015 d1.171812015 which vvere iolioured by the combined Honble High Court in WP No.33936 t2O11ancj Baich di.215t2O18 Reported in 2018 (4) ALT 6. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 claim of the petitioners for retrospective regularization from the date of completion of 5 years on or before 25.11.19g3 for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits in te!'ms of orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in civil Appeal No.6318 of 2o1s dt 17.g.2015 which were followed by the combined Hon'ble High court in wp No.33936tzo11and batch dt. 2.5.2018 Reported in 2018 (4) ALT P.6 pending finat disposat of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRt P.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVTCES I The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA w PETITION No- 22529 0F o20 ORDER: Heard Sri P. Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behatf of the respondents.

2. The oetitioners aDl,roa hed the Court Draver s under: ".......to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not granting retrospective regularization to the petitioners from the date of completion of 5 years on or before 25.11.1993 for counting of NMR service rendered prior to regularization of petitioner service for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.631g/2015 dt.17.8.2015 as followed by the combined Hon'ble Ap High Court in WP No.33936/2011 and Batch dt. 2.5.2018 (Reported in 2018 4 ALT p.6) is iflegal, arbitrary and voilative of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to grant retrospective regularization from the date of completion of 5 years on or before 25.11.1993 for the 2 SN,J W.P.No.22529 2020 purpose of pension and pensionary benefits as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6318/2015 dt.17.8.2015 which were followed by the combined Hon'ble High Court in WP No.33936/2011 & Batch dt. 2.5.2018 Reported in 2018 (4) ALT 6 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case......"

3. It is the specific Arievance of the petitioners that the petitioners were appointed as Public Health and Non-Public Health workers on an NMR basis during 1980 to 1985 in the erstwhile Kukatpally Gram Panchayat, which later merged with the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad in 2007. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.533, MA & UD, dated 29.LL.20L1, regularizing the petitioners services prospectively, but not from the date they completed five years of service, The petitioners placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Srinivasulu & Others vs. Nellore Municipal Corporation, which held that daily-wage workers are entitled to regularization from the date of completion of five years for the purpose of seniority and benefits and the 3 SN,J W.P.No.22529 2020 said decision having been implemented by the Government of Andhra Pradesh seek similar relief. The Hon,ble High Court also directed the respondents to implement this ruling, but the respondents have failed to do so, citing the over-ruling of the judgment in Srinivasulu,s case by the Hon,ble Apex Court in Manjula Bhashini ys. State of A.p. reported in (2009) 4 SCC 431. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioners approached the Court by filing the present Writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD:- A) The Division Benc h att th ts Court tn its fr doment- reoorted in (2O18) 4 ALT 6 in W.p.No.33936 of 2O1l & batch, dated o2.o 8i A.P. reores nted bv ts Princio al Se retarv. PR and RD Deoartment, Hvderabad and others Vs. N. Venkaiah overnment .2(JL n" and Others". dealinq with the case of the reqularization of the services and referrino to the asoect of the delav observed as under:- 4 SN,J W.P.No.22529 2020 " We find it difficult to accept the reasoning adopted by the High Court. The riqht of the apoellants to seek reoularization flows from the G.O.No.212, da 22-fJ4.7.994. The aooellant have been in service of the first resoondent not onlv orior to the issuance of ilra Ga rl lE 6 hrri arran n+ +ar +ha iccrra of G.O. till todav. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O.212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 yeans without regularizing the serwices of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellant. In the carcumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opanion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is a!lowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the aooellants' services be reoularized with effect from the date of their completinq their five vear continuous service as was laid down by District and others Vs. Collector/Chairoerson M.L.Sinqh and others (20lr9) 8 SCC 480. Court The appeal is accordingly disposed of." DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioners in the present Writ Petition in view of the fact as borne on record that the said relief as 5 SN,J [N.P.No.22529 2020 sought for by the petitioners in the present Writ Petition had been granted by the Division Bench of this Court vide its order, dated 06.03.20L7 passed in W.P. No. 4t797 of 2015 in respect of gther similarly situated individuals like the petitioners 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 been upheld by the Apex Court in "Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation represented by its Commissioner & Ors. Vs. P.Lingamma and Others" vide its judgment, dated 23.07.2024 in s.L.p. No.13813 of 2018 and therefore, the petitioners herein are entitled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioners in the present Writ Petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submits that as per law laid down by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015, dated 17.08.2015 which had been followed by this Court in W.P.Nos.33936 of 2011 and batch, dated 02.05.2018 reported in 2019 (4) ALT 6, the petitioners cannot be denied relief as prayed for in the present Writ Petition in respect of the claim of the petitioners for grant of pension and reitrernental benefits by granting 6 SN,J W.l'.No.22529 2020 retrospective regularization from the date of completion of five (05) years of service.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners had retired and since, the pension is continuous cause of action and since the said relief was extended for similarly situated persons, the petitioners approached this Court soon after obtaining knowledge, however the relief extended to similarly situated persons had been refused to the petitioners in the present Writ petition on the ground that petitioners approached the Court by filing the present Writ Petition after petitioners, retirement.

7. Learned Government pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners had not been diligent in approaching this Court promptly.

8. Learned Government Pleader for Services-t 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. 365L6 of 2024 7 SN,J W.P.No.22529 2020 and contended that in view of the inordinate delay on the part oF the petitioners in approaching this Court for the relief as prayed for by the petitioners in the present writ petition, the Present writ petition need to be dismissed in timini.

9. The relevant portaon of the iudoment, dated in W.P.No. 41797 of 2 15 is 06.o3. OL7 oassed extracted hereunder:- " In the light of this authoritative pronouncement by the Supreme Court, as recently as in August, 2015, on the issue of regularization of services under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994, we have no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal erred in denying relief to the petitioners herein insofar as their claim for regularization from an anterior date was concerned. They would therefore be entitled to regularization of their services from the date they completed five years of service but would not be entitled to any monetary benefits in terms of arrears of pay. They would however be eligible for notional fixation of pay and seniority.

10. Praver souoht for bv sim ilarlv situated oe ons like in W.P.No.9024 of 2Ol7 is extracted the oetitione hereu nder:- 8 SN,J W.P.No.22529 2020 ".......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 29.2.2OL6 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 20635/2012 dt 31.1.2017 and pass such other order or orders as this Honble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case..."

11. Para No.13 of the iud ment dated 13. 12.2022 in W.P.No.9O2 4 of 2OL7 is extracted oassed hereunder:- "13. Taking into consideration all the above referred facts and circumstances and the law laid down in the various judgments referred to and discussed above, the writ petition is allowed declaring that the petitioners are entitled for regularization from the date of completion of five years of service and the impugned G.O.Rt.No.97 MA, dated 29.02.2016 is set aside only to the extent of prospective regularizaEion the service of the 9 SN,J W.P.No.22529 2020 petitioners from date of completion of five years for the purpose of seniority as held by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6318 of 2015, dated 17.08.2015 and as per the iudgment of this Court in W.P.No.20635 of 2012, dated 31.Ot.20L7, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, duly taking into consideration the law laid down by the various judgments referred to and extracted above. It is however, made clear that the petitioners shall not be entitled to the monetary benefits for the said period in the form of arrears of pay or allowances and the respondents are directed to extend the benefit extended in case of B.Srinivasulu vs. Nellore Municipal Corporation to the petitioners by regularizing their services from the date of completion of five years of their services for the purpose of their seniority pension and other pensionary benefits. However, there shall be no order as to costs." t2. The Aoex Court in the Ful! Bench iudqment *DIST. COLLECToR/CH IRMAN AND reoorted in I ooa flTI{FPG v. ll I CtitGtr A ND observed as under: l0 SN,J W.P.No.22529 2020 rCCi llrr? ll irrh Carrr.t urhila iarr rrrillr rma/ifia rfian ",..8v the i mouoned iudom t the Division ho have co oleted five conside ench of order oassed bv the learned sinole Judoe has directed that alI emolovees ars of contin ous servr should reoularasation an accordance with the terms of G.O.MS. N.r , 1 , A)}6,l A^tia 1a 160, ihau ah rrld ha neirl tha tr urraraiE ai rirF permanent emoloyees of that Gateoonv. As reoards attrrltta nt nf rraaaa tlrara ltt h oarties that the same have to be paid from the date of reoularasation. In so far as reoularisation is concerned. we are of the view that the Hioh Court has riohtly directed that on the basis of the ilotification G.O.Ms. No. 212. the resoondent emotoyees shatt be regularised with effect from the date or dates, they completed five vears' continuous setyice...t' ifh +ha icrrrala ie rta t r:lllae irf la

13. The learned Government pleader for Services-I apoearanq on behalf of the respondents does not disoute the fa that th Dresent ief had been extended to similarlv situated oersons, but on the onlv qround that the oetitioners aoproached this Court after Iono laose of time after oetitioner,s reoutarization. the lea ed Gove nment Pleader I con nds rSe 1l SN,J W.P.No.22529 2020 that oetitioners herein are not entitled for the relief as Draved for in the oresent Writ Petition.

14. A bare oerusal of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Dondent Nos.3 & 4 ind tcates that the services of e Detitioners had been ularized v de nroceedino of the 3'd I resDondent dated 29-11-2021 and netitioners retired from service on attainino the aoe of su erannuation.

15. The Aoex Court in its iudoment reoorted in 2O21 (6) ALD 285 (SC) Modified Voluntarv Retirement Scheme of 2OO2 of Aza m -Iahi Mill Workers Association Vs National Textile Corooration Ltd and othersl. verv clearlv observed that the r aht to edua under Article 14 of the Co nstitutio n of India s vested in favour of w lra alria- aarrrli -nll rrrFih, rn/ ltrarafar.a it is enfo ble aoainst state instru entalities in exercise of 1 2021 (6) A LD 2A5 (SC) 4 Dower under Article 226 of the Const tution and furthe r when eouals are treated uneouallv- the is violation of Article 14. The eoualitv s r rlafinita neeot and th(lse wh(t are t2 SN,J W.P.No.22529 2020 similarlv carcumstanced are entitled to eoual treatment. Paras 9(c) and 9(d) of the said iudoment reads as under: "9(C)The submission on behalf of the respondents more particularly learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the appellant Association - 318 ex- employees have no legal right and that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have no legal duty has no substance and cannot be accepted. Right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is vested right in favour of the person who claims equality and parity and the same is enforceable against State / State instrumentalities in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We find no justification at all in treating 318 ex-employees different from those 134 ex-employees who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost. We find that as such the equals are treated unequally and therefore, when the equals are treated unequally. there is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and therefore, the appellants were entitled to the relief sought even in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9(D) The concept of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws emerges from the fundamental right expressed in Article 14 of the Constitution. Equality is a definite concept. The concept of equality has an inherent limitation arising from the very nature of the constitutional guarantee. Those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to an equal treatment. Equality is amongst equals. Classification is therefore to be founded on substantial differences which distinguish persons r3 SN,J W.P.No.22529 2020 grouped together from those left out of the groups and such ditferential attributes must bear in just and rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. In a given case Article 14 of the Constitution may permit a valid classification. However, a classification to be followed must necessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective and secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another must have a reasonable nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. In the present case allotment of 200 Sq.Yards free of cost to 134 employees was to avoid undue hardship to the ex-employees and as a welfare measure. As observed hereinabove those 318 ex-employees who are denied the 5 benefit of allotment of 200 Sq.yards of plots free of cost are similarly placed persons with that of 134 employees who are allotted 200 Sq.Yards plots free of cost. There is no rationale justification in providing differential treatment to one class of ex-employees similarly placed with another class of ex-employees who are allotted the plots. "

16. The Apex Court in its Judoment in State of Uttar :) 'l "( 1) Normal rule is that when a pafticular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of l4 SN,J w.P.No.22529 2020 Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. "

17. This Court opanes that petitaoners are entatled for grant of relief as prayed for by the petitaoners herein since the very same relief had been extended by the respondents in respect of others similarly situated lake the petitioners herein and it is settled law that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly as the observations of the Apex Court in the Judgments referred to and extracted above. l5 SN,J W.P.No.22529 2020 Kumar Rai & Othe s- State of V B har & others" dt. 2r.02.2022 t Paras 7.8- LO. 11 obse d as under Article 32 of the Constitution provides for a Fundamental Right to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of the Fundamental Rights, The founding fathers contemplated that the very right to approach this Court when there is a violation of Fundarnental Rights, should be declared as beyond the reach of Parliament and, therefore, it is as a part of judicial review that the right under Article 32 has been put in place and invoked from time to time. That in a given case, the Court may refuse to entertain a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is solely a part of self-restraint which is exercised by the Court having regard to various considerations which are gerrnane to the interest of justice as also the appropriateness of the Court to interfere in a particular case. The right under Article 32 of the Constitution remains a Fundamental Right and it is always open to a person cornplaining of violation of Fundamental Rights to approach this Court, This is, no doubt, subject to the power of the Court to relegate the party to other proceedings. At the heart of the Constitution lies certain principles which have, in fact, been recognised as part of the basic structure. Article 14 of the Constitution proclaims right to equality. The right against unfair State action is part of Article 14. Unequals being treated equally is tabooed under Article 14 of the Constitution. A person entitled to be treated as a member of Scheduled Tribe under Article 342, cannot be treated on par with a person who is brought in by an incompetent Body, viz,, the State in the manner d one. Article 21 of the Constitution again is the fountain head of many rights which are part of the grand rnandate which has been from time to time unravelled by this Court giving rise to the theory of unenumerated rights under the Constitution. While liberty is a dynamic concept capable of encompassing within it a variety of Rights, the irreducible minimum and at the very core of liberty, is freedom from unjustifiable custody. l6 SN,J W.P.No.22529 2020

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 Crnrnilif r Mahac:nrrhr wherein this Court has inter alia held as follows:- Union t I n/i, /rnI q ?qact

32. ".....Further, in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., at has now been conclusivelv held that all fundamentat raohts cannot be waived (at para 29). Given these imoortant develooments in the law. the time has come for thas Court to sav that at least when it comes to rrialrlianc ?irrht ia tif and oersonal liberty, delav or laches bv itself without more would not be sufficient to shut the doors of the court on anv petitioner." frrrtdrrnarr+tl af iha

11. Therefore, we do not think we should be detained bv the obiection. We would think that delav bv itself cannot be used as a weaoon to Veto l7 . SN,J W.P.No.22529 2020 an action under Article 32 when violation of Fundamenta! Riohts is clearlv at stake.

19. This Court opines that the consideration of petationers case by the respondents herein for prayer sought for by the petataoner in the present writ petition cannot be rejected on the ground of delay.

20. Takinq into nsideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) The judgment of this Court, in "Government of A.P. representing by its Principal Secretary, PR and RD Department, Hyderabad and others Vs. N.Venkaiah and others", dated 02.05.2018 passed in W.P.Ns. 33936 of 2011 & batch reported in 2018 (4) ALT page 6. (referred to and extracted above), l8 SN,J W.P.No.22529 2020 d) The iudgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 06.03.2O17 passed an W.P.No.41797 of 2015 which had been upheld by the Apex Court in "Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation represented by its Commissioner & Ors. Vs. P.Lingamma and Others" vide its judgment, dated

23.07.2024 in S.L.P.No.13813 of 2O18 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Aoex reoorted in *DIST. COLLECTOR/CH urt in the Full Bench iudoment RMAN AND OTHERS v. M.L.STNGH AND OTHERS" dated o6.o2.1998. f) The judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6318 ol 2OL5, dated 07.08.2015, q) The Aoer Court iudoment reoo in 2O22 SCC Online SC 2 2 in "Sunil Kumar Rai Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others", h) The A Court Judom nt reDorted in 2O21 (6) ALD 285 (SC) (referred to and extracted above), i) The Aoex rt in its Judoment in State of Uttar P adesh and Ot hers Vs. Aravin Kumar I I I9 SN,J W.P.No.22529 2O20 v n to nd ,] above), The Writ petitaon is altowed as prayed for, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for granting pension and retiremental benefits by granting retrospective regularization from the date of completion of five (O5) years, by duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court and other Courts in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) through which the said relief had been extended to similarty situated persons like the petitioners (referred to and extracted above) and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an oppodunity of personal hearing to the petitioners duly examining the relevant documents in support of petitioners case and duty communicate the decision to the petitioners, within a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. However. there shall be no order as to costs. 20 SN,J W.P.No.22529 2020 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY NT REG ASS ,ffRUE COPYI To, The Prl.Secretary, MA and UD Department' Secretariat Telangana, HYderabad CTION OFFICER uildings.State of

2.ThePrl.Secretary,FinanceandPlanningDepartment'secreiariatBuildings' State of Telangaha, HYderabad

3. The Commissioner, Greater Hserabad Municipal corporation. Hyderabad' 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Kukatpally Circle' GHtulC' Hyderabad' 5 One CC to SRI P.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] 6,TwoCCstoGPFoRSERVIGESl'HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana, IouTl

7. Two CD CoPies. BSK GJP l)r'\ct. 1 I I I lHE S TA 1 7 JAN 2O2E ( * v'2_ :,) -k HIGH COURT DATED:1710612025 ET] WP.No.22529 of 2020 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (&^, l*\,rl >9