High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order or orders more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring inaction of the Respondent. No.2 and 3 in not consider the representations of the petitioner No.1 to 3 dated 1210312020, Consequently direct the Respondent 2 and 3 to consider the representation dated 12to3t2020. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G. RAJESHWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI LAXMAN RAO, REPRESENTING The Court made the following: ORDER SRI RAMESH CHILLA, SC HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION o,25L22 0t 2021 ORDER Heard Sri G. Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Laxman Rao, tearned counsel representing Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No.3. 2 The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as u nder: "...to issrre an appropriate order oT orders more particularl,, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring lactron of the Respondent. Nos.2 and 3 in not considerinrr tl'te representations of the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 daLed 12/()3.2020, consequenUy direct the Respondents 2 and 3 to r.orrsider the representation dated 12/03/2020 and to pas. ".

3. The case ,rf the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioner No.1 joined as Work Inspector and the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 joined as Drivers on contract basis on 29.03.1996. Thereafter, the petitioners made representation to the respondent No.2 on ) ,;:*i ' SN, J wP 25122 2021 30,11.2012 and also made another representation dated

27.72.20L2 to the 3'd respondent requesting them to absorb the petitioners either as Work Inspector or Draughtsman or Tracer of Technical Officer in Gadwal Municipality or in any Municipalities of erstwhile Mahabubnagar. But, the respondents have not considered the said representation s.

4. It is the specific case of the petitioners that in spite of the petitioners' detailed representations addressed to the respondent No.2 dated 12.O3.2020, which had even been acknowledged by the office of the respondent No.2 in March, 2020 itself, however, no action has been initiated on the said representation as on date. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.S submits that the writ petition could be disposed of by directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the grievance of the petitioners as put forth in the petitaoners representations dated t2'O3'2O2O, addressed to the respondents 2 and 3 herein, in accordance to taw within a reasonable period' I I J SN, J wP 25122 2021

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners does not dispute the said submission made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No,5, 7 Takino into consideration: (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, (c) The contents of the petitioners' representation dated 12.O3,2O2O, addressed to the 2nd and 3'd respondent which had been acknowledged by the office of the Gadwal Muncipality, Gadwal, The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Telangana State, Hyderabad and, (d) The fact that no orders have been passed on the said representation dated 12.O3.2020 of the petitioners herein addressed to the respondent Nos.2 and 3, as on date. 4 SN, J wt 25122 2021 The writ petitaon is disposed of directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the grievance of the petitioners as put forth vide petitioners representation dated 12.O3,2O2O addressed to the 2nd and 3"d respondent pertaining to petitioners request to issue orders for absorption as Work Inspector or Draughtsman or Tracer of Technical Officer in Gadwa! Municipality or in any Municipalities of erstwhile Mahabubnagar on sympathetic and compassionate grounds, in accordance to law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duly communicate the decision on the said representation of the petitioners dated 12.O3.2O2O to the petitioners herein. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed. SD/. S.MALLIKARJUNA RAo EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFlCER I To TJ Deoartment Secr6tariat, Hyderabad'

1. The Prl. Secretary, The State of Telangana' Municipal and Urban " ,. ff5uffi U;;;;;;?' Diffi oil-t-tvtu n icipa I Ad m inistration' r s'' Hvd e ra bad' 5. iii; &;;i'iio,i.r, cia*,I Municipalitv, iosgl31lg Gadwal District' ;. o;; C-C i" -sii'c. 5. rwo ccs to GP to, n/|unlJi;ar'nt1"l'niit|.iiq; [u'n Development' Hish court - f*if," Sirt" of Telangana,'at Hyderabad [OUT] o. one cC to Sri RameJh chilla, sc [oPUC] 7. Two CD CoPies w Rajesnwar Rao' 'Advocate IoPUCI I I HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:1010312025 i ORDER WP.No.25122 ot 2021 l'rrre 6 A 1t q a .,) rq htt s5 r ,-JFgn^ ,tl i DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 10 erq(aa ffi"