1. Smt.R.Yellamma v. The State of Telangana

Heard Sri P.Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The oetitio ers aDoroached the C urt seekino oraver as under: ".......to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the respond.ents 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6318/2015 dt. 17.8.2015, the same has been follows by this Hon'ble Court in WP No.33936/20LL & Batch dt.2.5.2018 Reported in 2018 (4) ALT 6 is illegal, arbitrary and voilative of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to sanction and pay the pension and retiremental benefits as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6318/2015 dt.17.8.2015, the same has been follows by this {>+ L*--41:J". ? 2 SN,J W.P. io.24429 2020 Hon'ble Court in WP No.33936/20ll & Batch dt. 2.5.2018 Reported in 2018 (4) ALT 6 anr pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court nay deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the c: ;e.... "

3. It is the specific grievance of the petition. 's that they were appointed as Public Health workers on ar NMR baSiS during 1980 to 1985 in the erstwhile Kukit pally Gram Panchayat, which later merged with the Municipcrl of Hyderabad in 2007. The Governnt G.O.Ms.No.533, MA & UD, dated 29.11.2O1I Corporation nt issued reg u la rizin g their services prospectively, but not from tl- : date the petitioner completed five years of service. The petitioners placing reliance on the juc< ment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Srinivasulu & Other:; vs. Nellore Municipal Corporation, which held that daily-tt )ge workers are entitled to regularization from the date of : ,mpletion of five years for the purpose of seniority and ber( fits and the said decision has been implemented by the G ) /ern ment oF Andhra Pradesh seek similar relief. The Hon'bl€ High Court also directed the respondents to implement thir ruling, but the respondents have failed to do so, citing the : rer- ruling of 3 SN,J W.P.No.24429 2020 the judgmenl in Srinivasulu's case by the Hon,ble Apex Court in Manjula Bhashini vs. 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. 4, PERU ED THE RE CORD:- A) The Divi Ben h this C ud m n reDort d in 2O18(4) ALT 6 in W.P No.33935 of 2011 & batch. dated 02.O5.201 8 in "Governm ent of A.P. reDresen ted bv its Princi al Secretarv- PR and RD Deoa rt ent, Hvdera ad and oth rs Vs. N. V nkaiah and Others", dealino with the case of the reoular ization servtc re rnn observed as under:- " We find it difficult to accept the reasoning adopted 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 been in service of the first respondent not only praor to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subsequent to the issue of G.O. tall today. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O.212(supra). Inspite of the above .I 4 SN.J W.I'. 1o.24429_2020 mentioned G.O. the respondents kept ( uite for almost 20 years without regulariz:i rg the services of the appellants and cont,r ued to extract work from the appellant. In the circumstances, refusing the be the above mentioned G.O. on the groL the appellants approached the belatedly, in our opinion, is not justi the circumstances, the appeal is modifying the order under appeal by rl that the appellants' services be regl with effect from the date of their cor their five year continuous service as I down by Collector/Chairperson and other': M.L.Singh and others (2009) I SCC 480 this Court in 'lefit of nd that ribunal 'ied. In rllowed recti ng rla ri zed pleting 'as laid District Vs. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.'' DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- 5: Learned counsel appearing on behalf of tt ) petitioners submits that the petitioners are entitled for t re relief as prayed for by the petitioners in the present Wr : Petition in view of the fact as borne on record that the s tid relief as sought for by the petitioners in the present Wri : Petition had been granted by the Division Bench of this C( urt vide its order, dated 06.03.2017 passed in W.P.No. 417)t of 2015 in respect of other similarly situated individu a s like the petitioners herein and the said judgment of the t,i rision Bench 5 SN.J W.P.No.24429 2020 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 entiUed for the relief as prayed for by the petitioners in the present Writ petition. Learned counsel appearing on behalf oF the petitioners further submits that as per law laid down by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.631B 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 2018 (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 reitremental benefits by granting 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 were retired and since, the pension is continuous cause of action and since the said relief :I 6 SN,J W.l' ',1o.24429 2020 was extended for similarly situated persons/ t'r I petitioners approached this Court soon after obtainin,S knowledge, however the relief extended to similarly situate(l persons had been refused to the petitioners in the present \\rt Petition on the ground that petitioners approached the Coutl by filing the present Writ Petition after petitioners' retiremenl,

7. Learned Government Pleader for Service: -l appearing on behalf oF the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners had not been diligent in approaclri tg this Court promptly.

8. Learned Government Pleader for Servictl -I appearing on behalf of the respondents in support of hi submission placed reliance on the judgment of the Division ]ench of this Court, dated 03.02.2025 passed in W.P.No. 35 i76 of 2024 and contended that in view of the inordinate jelay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Cour: for the relief prayed for by the petitioners in the present writ Petition, the Present writ petition need to be dismissed in lim,'r i. 7 SN,J W.P.No.24429 2020

9. The elevant oortionof the iudo ment, dated o6. 3.201 7 oasse .P.No.41797 of 2015 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.t994, 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 entiiled 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. Pr the oetitioners n W.P.No. 9024 of 2OL7 is e hereu nder:- ns lik xtracted ".......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 I 8 SN,J W.P. 1o.24129 2020 GORI.No.97, MA, dt 29.2.20t6 only to th(: extent of prospective regularization instead of reg t larization f rom the date of completion of 5 yea r': for the purpose of seniority as held by the Ape< Court in Civil Appeal No. 6318/2015 dt 17. 8.2015 3 rd as per the judgment of this Honble Court in WP 2t);35/2012 dt 31.1.2017 and pass such other order or rrders as this Honble court may deem fit and prot :r in the circumsta nces oF the case..."

11. Para No.13 of the iudq ent dated t3.12 2022 oassed in W.P.No.9024 of 2O17 is- extracted hereu nd er: - "13. Taking into consideration all ti referred facts and circumstances and the down in the various judgments referretl discussed above, the writ petition is allowed that the petitioners are entitled for regtt from the date of completion of five years : and the impugned G.O.Rt.No.97 Ml,, 29.02.2016 is set aside only to the (l prospective reg u larization the service petitioners from date of completion of five the purpose of seniority as held by the Apex Civil Appeal No.631B of 2015, dated 17.08,: as per the judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 2012, dated 3l.O]-.2Ol7, within a period of e above law laid to and leclaring rrization 'service rtent of of the 'ears for Court in 015 and 10635 of cur (04) j :&-:, 9 SN,J W.P.No.24429 2020 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. " L2. The Aoex ourt in the Full Bench iudoment r€Dorte d in 'DIST- COLLECTOR CHAIRMAN AND HERS v. M.L ERS" dated

2.L observed as under: ",..8v the imouoned iudom nt the Division Bench of the Hioh Cou rt, while affirmino with m dification the order passed bv the learned sinole Judqe has directed that all emDl vees who have comoleted five vears of continuous service should be considered for reoularisatio in accordance with the terms of G.O.Ms. Na .l'+ d Aatil ,l , i nair{ thair r a.roc r} rerraac nrid +n th6 )a L994 n .l +tr.i rtt rw i+]i fh6 h , 10 SN.J W.l'} \o.24429 2020 permanent emoloyees of that cateoorv! As reqards oavment of wages there is no disoute _ )etween the arties th tth t r the date of m h j; concerned, reoularisation. In so far as reoularisation we are of the view that the Hioh cout:l has riq htlv directed that on the basis of the NotificA tion G.O.MS. No. 2 12, the resoondent emplove€i! all be reoularised with e ct from the date or dates, they comoleted five vears' contanuous service...

13. The learned Government Pleader fc1 Services-I apoearino on behalf of the resoondentg does not disoute the fact that the or sent relie had been t extended to samalarlv situated oersons, but )n the onlv qround that the petationers aoproached thili Court after lono a ose of time after oetitioner's requla g zation, the learned G vernment Pleader f r Services- [ contends that petitioners herean are not entitled for t te relief as f r rn h I nt Wri P

14. A bare perusal of the averments r.! ade i cou nter affidavit filed on behalf of the 'esDo dent Nos.3 & 4 indicates that the se ices of the: oetitioners had b en reoularize vide oro I lnqs t) 3rd II SN,J W.P.No.24429 2020 resDondent dated 29.11.2021 an d Detitioners retired from service on attainino he aqe of suoera n u ation.

15. The A ex Court in its iudomentr eDo (6) ALD 2A (SC) Modified Volunta D rted in 2O21 Retirement Scheme of 2O O2 of Azam Jahi Mill Worke rs Association Vs National Textile Corooration Ltd and othersl, verv observed ht at tha ri hr toe uali rA 14 of the Co stitution of India is veste in favour of r n tms e u lit therefore it is enforceable aqainst state instru entalities in exercrse ot L 202L (5) ALD 28s ( sc) 4 power under Article 226 of the Constitution and further when eouals are treated uneouallv. there is violation of Article 14. The eoualiW is a definite !'reeDt and those who are similarlv carcumstanced are entitled to eoual treatment. Paras 9(c) and 9(d) of the said iudoment reads as u nder: "g(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 ! 1 t2 SN,J W | .No.24429 2020 accepted. Right to equality guaranteed und: the Constitution of India is vested right lr person who claims equality and parity anc enforceable against State / State instrumenta i of powers under Article 226 of the Constituti r find no justification at all in treating 31g different from those 134 ex-employees whr> 200 Sq. Ya rds of plots free of cost. We find t 1 equals are treated unequally and therefore, ra,l are treated unequally, there is a violation of l,r Constitution and therefore, the appellants w( the relief sought even in exercise of powers un( of the Constitution of India. 9(D) The conc,: before the law and equal protection of the law:; the fundamental right expressed in Artic ( Constitution. Equality is a definite concept. -- equalaty has an inherent limitation arising i nature of the constitutional guarantee. Tlr, similarly circumstanced are entitled to an eqL Equality is amongst equals. Classification is t. founded on substantial differences which distin, grouped together from those left out of the gr: differential attributes must bear in just and r.r1 to the object sought to be achieved. ' Article 14 of favour of the the same is ies in exercise t of India. We ex-employees were allotted rt as such the en the equals :icle 14 of the re entitled to er Article 226 rt of equality -.merges from 14 of the e concept of om the very se who are rl treatment. rrefore to be uish persons rps and such onal relation In a grven case Article 14 of the Corr: titution may permit a valid classification. However, a classil cation to be followed must necessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a j rst objective and secondly, the choice of differentiating one ; )t of persons from another must have a reasonable nexus l:( the objects 1 I l3 SN,J W.P.No.24429 2020 sought to be achieved. In the present case altotment 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 20O 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 Aoex Court in its Judqment in State of Uttar Pradesh nd Others Vs. Ar vind Kumar Srivastava and oth ers dated 17.10 .2O14 in the oarticular Daraq ra Dh oiven below "(1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benetit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of 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." I I i i i I I l i l I , i j t4 SN,J W. ) No.24429 2020

17. This Court opanes that petitioners arc: entitled for grant of relief as prayed for by the petiti,:1ers herein since the very same relief had been exter ded by the respondents in respect of others similarly s ituated like the petitioners herein and it is seftled lrw that all similarly situated persons should be treate(l similarly as per the observations of the Apex C<l rrt in the Judgments referred to and extracted above,

18. This Court ooines that the Det atlone cannot be denied the relief as extended to other simili rly situated oersons on the qround of delav since cll rlav cannot defeat eouitv when ssue oertains to infri rqement of oetitioners' fundamental riohts. The Apex I )ourt in the iudqment reported tn 2O22 SCC Online SC 12 12 in "Sunil Kumar Rai & Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others" dt.

21.02.2O22 at Paras 7, 8, 1O, 11, observed i1 ; under : Article 32 of the Constitution provil Fundamental Right to approach the Suprem(l enforcement of the Fundamental Rights. Th: fathers contemplated that the very right to ap,r Court when there is a violation of Fundamer t should be declared as beyond the reach of I and, therefore, it is as a part of judicial reviev right under Article 32 has been put in place a l from time to time. That in a given case, the ( :s for a Court for fou nding 'oach this rl Rights, arliament that the I invoked ou rt may l5 SN,J W.P.No.24429 2020 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 germane 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 complaining 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 Cons[itution. 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 done. Article 21 of the Constitution again is the fountain head of many rights which are part of the grand mandate 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 iiberty, is freedom from unjustifiable 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 l 16 SN,J W.P;1o.24429 2020 to the fact that based on the Notification, it ap3 FIRs came to be lodged by persons claim r members of the Scheduled Tribe community arrr to invoke the 1989 Act. The FIRs lodged in 2020 occasioned the petitioners to approa l seeking protection under Section 438 of the C' of the petitioners have not secured such 1r Petitioner No. 1, it appears was not arrested. assuming for a moment, that the petitioners I i with some delay, we find reassurance from tlt of this Court in the judgment reported it Sanmilita Mahasa nq ha v. Union of India (2015 wherein this Court has inter alia held as follows: - :ars that seeking :he year r Courts ).C. Two otection. lut even ve come ropinion Assa m 3 SCC 1, I

32. ".....Further, in OIga Telll s v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., it has now- ,een conclusivelv held that all fundanr :ntal riqhts € nnot be waived (at Dara _ 29). nt develoDments irthe Given these imoo law, the time has come for this CoU 't to com ;to sav that at least when it violations of the f ndamental rioht lr , life delav or lach e; bv and oersonal !ibe itself without more would not be sufli :ient of the court or! any to shut the doo oetitioner. " 1 1. Therefore, we do not think we sl' ould be detained bv the obiection. We would tl1 nk that delav bv itself cannot be used as a weapol to Veto an action under Article 32 when vio! rtion of Funda m nta tRioh e c clearlw at stake

19. This Court opines that the consid eration of petitioners case by the respondents hereirr for prayer sought for by the petitioner in the present ', rit petation cannot be rejected on the ground of delay.

20. Takinq into consideration:- t7 SN,J W.P.No.24429 2O20 a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services-f, 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 O2.OS.2018 passed in W.P.Ns. 33936 of 2O11 & batch .reported in 2018 (4) ALT page 6. (referred to and extracted above), d) The judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated O6.03.2017 passed in W.p.No.4L797 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 2Ot8 (referred to and extracted above), t8 SN,J W.F No.24429 2020 e) The Apex Court in the Full Ben,: r iudqment reported in *DIST. COLLECTOR,/CH,, RMAN AND OTHERS v. M.L.SINGH AND OTH I RS" dated

06.02.1998. f) The judgment of the Apex Court in 3ivil Appeal No.6318 of 2015, dated O7.08.2015, q) The Aoex Court iudoment reoorted _ n 2022 SCC Online SC 232 in "Sunil Kumar Rai {! Others Vs. State of Bihar & Others". h) The Aoex Court Judoment reoortecl in 2021 (6) ALD 285 (SC) (referred to and extract,? I above), i) The Aoex Court in its Judo men': in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Arar ind Kumar Srivastava and others (referred to ar1l extracted above), The Writ petition is allowed as pray:d for, the respondents are directed to consider the c laim of the petitioners for granting pension and r stiremental benefits by granting retrospective regulari lation from the date of completion of five (05) years, b1r duly taking 7/ t9 SN,J W.P.No.24429 2020 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 similarly situated persons tike the petitioners (referred to and extracted above) and pass appropriate orders in accordance to taw, in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners duly examining the relevant documents in support of petataoners case and duly 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. l To, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/. A.H.S. GOWRI S SISTANT R R ISTRA //TRUE COPY//

1. The Prl. Secretary, MA and UD Depart Hyderabad, State of Telangana' SECTION OFFICER n Secretariat Buildings'

2. The Prl. Secretary, Finance and Planning Department' Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, State of Telangana'

3. The Commissioner' Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation' Hyderabad' 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Kukatpally Circle, GHMC' Hyderabad' 5. One CC to SRI P.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-|, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] S'\r^' g BSR Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED: 1710612025 ! / ORDER WP.No.24429 of 2020 c: nr \)\ tUiu o u J '' (;) .'! r\T[ t o[.:: rJ ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS @+r4 31[rd,{