The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT. C. JYOTSNA DEVI REP. FOR SRI D. SUDHARSHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.l to 5: SRI G. VIDYA SAGAR, SR. COUNSEL REP. FOR SMT. K. UDAYA SRI Counsel for the Respondent No.6: GP FOR ENERGY The Court made the following: ORDER n 3 SN,I wP No.26971 2023 THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLT NANDA W.P. No. 269 7L ot 2023 ORDER Heard Smt. C.Jyotsna Devi, lear red counsel representing Sri G.Sudharshan, learned cour set appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri G.Vidya S agar, learned Senior Designated Counsel representing Snr :. K. Udayasri, learned counsel on record appearing )n behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and learned Gover rment Pleader appearing on behalf of Respondent No.6'

2. PRAYER: The Petationers aooroache thi s Cou't seekinq the oraver as under : "To issue an appropriate Writ, Order o- Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Wri of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respond,: tts in rejecting Petitioners request for pay fixation anc seniority on par with similarly situated candidates vide mpugned Memo No.CGM (HRD)/GM (Per)/AS (Per & Set)/PO-A129-A2/23 dated 09.06.2023 issued by the 2nd resp )ndent, as being arbitrary, illegal, erroneous, discriminator', contrary to the material on record and in violation of Ar.i :les 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and set rside the same \_:. .-€=; 4 sN'l wP No.26971,2023 accordingly and consequently hold that the petitioners are entitled to have their pay fixed and seniority determined in the Junior Linemen category on par with similarly situated candidates who were appointed as Contract Junior Linemen in the year 2007 with benefits incidental and ancillary thereto pursuant to Recruitment Notification dated OB.06.2006 and Revised Notification dated 20.10.2006 in the interest ofjustice and to pass such other order..." 3 Case of the Petition ers as oer the averments m ade bv the Detitaoners in the affidavit filed bv the oetitioners tn su OD rto sent writ rletit on in briefisa s under f the Dre (i) The petitioners applied for the Contract Junior Lineman post notified through the Recruitment Notification dated

08.06.2006 and the Revised Notification dated 20'10.2006. The petitioners' na mes appeared in the selection list, but petitioners were denied appointment due to shifting administrative reasons' Litigation regarding these selections continued up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and during this period. the undertakings of the Respondents were recorded in W.A. No. 1434 of 2008 dated

10.11.2009 and SLP (Civil) Nos. 15001-15110 of 2013 dated

25.O2.2Olg.Aggrieved by the continued non-appointment, the petitioners filed W.P. No. 14416 of 2019, and this Court, by order dated 13.08.2019, directed petitioners to submit individual 5 SN,J wP No-26971 2023 representations and directed the Respondent to examine petitioners' cases in terms of Clause 6(iv)(c) rf the Revised Notification. In pursuance of the order dated 11.08.2019, the petitioners submitted detailed representatioi s and were eventually appointed as Junior Linemen vide prc ceedings dated

22.02.2020. (ii) It is further the case of the petitir rers that since seniority and pay-fixation benefits on par witf Contract Junior Linemen who were appointed in the year 007 were not considered for promotion, the petitioners s.r )mitted further representations dated 02.O3.2023, which rer ained pending. Consequently, the petitioners filed W.P. No. 10113 oF 2023, and in I.A. No. Ol of 2023, this Court, by order de.ed 17.04.2023, directed the Respondents to dispose ot the pending representations. In compliance thereof, the 2nd Respondent issued the impugned Memo No. CGM(HRD)/(; 4(Per)/AS(Per & Ser)/PO-A/29-A2/23 dated 09.06.2023, rejectirg the request of the- petitioners on the ground that the Hon'b r Supreme Court had issued no specific directions regarding : eniority or pay- fixa tion. 71 6 SN,J wP No.26971_2021 (iii) After issuance of the impugned memo, the petitioners withdrew W.P. No. 10343 of 2023 on 12.09'2023 with liberty to file a fresh petition. The petitioners filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned Memo dated 09'06'2023 and seeking recognition of petitioners' entitlement to seniority and proper pay-fixation with all consequential benefits, along with interim suspension of the impugned memo and a direction to consider Petitioners' claims. 4 PERUSED THE R ECO RD: (A) h o .o 2023 a bv the 2nd res DOn dent i extra cted h reund er "Memo No .CGM (HRD) /GM(Per /AS( Per&Ser) PO-A/29-A2/23, Dt.0 9.06.2 o23 Su b: TSSPDCL - HRD - orders dated 17.04'2023 I.A.No.01/2023 in W'P.No 10343 of 2023 filed by Jillepalli Sateesh and 77 others - Speaking Orders Issued. IN Sri Ref : order dated 17.04.2023 in I.A.No.01/2023 in W.P.No.10343 of 2023 filed by Sri Jillepalli Sateesh and 17 others. The Hon'ble High Court in I'A'No'O1/2023 W.P.No.10343 of 2023 iled by Sri Jillepalli Sateesh and others passed Orders dated 17'04 2023' t7 "The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to dispose of the representation dated O2.O3'2023 filed by the petitloner in accordance with law within twelve (12) weeks irom the date of receipt ot copy of this order"' 1 SN,J wP N0.2697 r 2023

2. In compliance of the above Order of the Hon'ble High Court and the representations dated 12.03.2023 are carefully examined. Upon careful considerati()r of the subject matter with reference to the record availal e the following speaking order is issued :

2.1 The Writ Petitioners herein in \ /.P.No.10343 of 2023 along with certain others filed W.P.no.14'1 6 of 2019 in the Hon'ble High Court for the State of. T,: tngana seeking appointment as Junior Lineman pursuant to ihe Notiflcations issued in 2006. The Hon'ble Court disposed rff the same by Orders dated 13.08.2019. In compliance to t re orders of the Hon'ble High Court, the applications of the I )titioners therein were examined and were issued with apt lintment orders d1.22.O2.2O2O as Junior Lineman by the Superintending Engineer/Op/Nalgonda. In the appointment orc:rs it was clearly specified that they are appointed as lunior Li 1 ]man in the time scale of pay of Rs.24340-39405 with usual allcr ances with effect from the date of actual joining into duty subje,: to the conditions specified therein.

2.2 The Writ Petitioners herein after having accepted the appointment order and joined the duty ly submitting the joining report in February, 2O2O/June, 2O2O. | 1er, more than 3 years, they have submitted representations ated 02.03.2023 seeking to fix pay and seniority on par with t I e candidates who were appointed in the yeat 2007 as per condij i rn No.6 (iv) (c) of the revised n otification.

2.3 That, they have applied for the p< st of contract ILM in pursuance of the notifications dt.B.0(,.2006/20.10.2006. However they were not selected in terms of : ause 6 (iv) (c) of the revised notification. In terms of the undert rking given before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, they were ir;' ued apPointment orders in the vacancies which were availabl<' as on the date of issuance of appointment orders. The said ,r ders were issued without disturbing the selection process vr ich had attained finality, as confirmed by the Hon'ble Suprem€ lourt.

2.4 That, Notification issued in the /ear 2006 is for appointment to the post of Contract - l M. The selected two (2) years oF candidates who have satisfactorily complet€( contract service were regularized in the cadr: of JLM. Whereas the petitioners herein are appointed as - I M in the regular vacancy, therefore, they cannot compare tr:mselves with the candidates appointed in 2007 pursuance of tf,{ notification. ?r 8 sN'l wP N0.26971 2023

2.5 That, the Notification dt.08.06.2006/20.10.2006 is for appointment to the post of contract lunior Lineman on yearly contact basis. However, since having given an undertaking before the Division Bench of the Honble High Court in W.A.No.1434 of 2008 and batch, the candidates who are affected by Clause 6 (iv) (c) were selected in future. The said undertaking given before the Hon'ble Division bench was that the distribution company is willing to give appointment and absorb the Writ Petitioners who are affected by Clause 6 (iv) (c). The said undertaking was recorded by the Honble Division Bench and specifically directed Distribution company to appoint all candidates who have applied pursuant to the notification issu-ed in the year 2006 and have passed pole climbing test and fulfilled the other eligibility criteria without reference to and without insisting upon the fulfillment of Clause 6 (iv) (c) of the revised notification dt. 20.10.2006. Same was again reiterated before the Honble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.15001-15110 of 2013. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also recorded the statement of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the DISCOMS that even at this stage, if persons who have applied for selection as Junior Linemen in the year 2006, who were not appointed due to the condition No.6 (iv) (c) of the revised Notification, they shall be considered for appointment. The petitioners herein were appointed in terms of the Orders dated 25.02.2019 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.15001-15110 of 2013 and batch.

2.6. Further there are no directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court given to treat with all benefits (i.e Pay, Promotion and in Seniority) on par with the contract Junior Lineman who were appointed in the year 2OO7 and thus the petitioners herein have accepted the appotntment orders issued on 22.02.2020.

3. Further, any person who is appointed to a post is entitled to fixation of pay from the date of joining into service. No employee can claim for monetary benefits and seniority prior to his absorption into service.

4. For the reasons stated above, the representations given on O2-O3-2O23 requesting to grant all benefits (i.e Pay, Promotion and Seniority) on par with the contract Junior Lineman who were appointed in the year 2007 does not merit consideration and hence the same is hereby rejected. G. RAGHUMA REDDY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR" ( 9 SN,J \tlP No-2697 L 2023 (B) The order of this Court dat

13.()8.:l' )19 Da sed in favou r of the Writ P itioners on an ea rlier J cca sron when this Cou t the oetitio ners aooroached W.P.No.L44L6 of 2O19 is extracted hereund(r: "Learned counsel for the petitioners as r' ell as the learned Standing Counsel for respondents submit that 11e issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the orc:r of this Court in W.P.No.14304 of 2019, dated 09.O8.2019. In view of the above submission, tlri ; writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order of this Cou " in W. P.No.143O4 of 2019, dated 09.08.2019. There shall be no r -der as to costs. Copy of the order dated 09.08.2019 ir W.P.No.l43O4 of 2019 be annexed to this order. Miscellaneous petition, pending, if tny, shall stand closed. " (c) The relevant oortion of order d ted O9.O8.2O19 a d in W.P.No.L43O4 of 201 e d hereunder : "Therefore, in view of the petitioners t ) submit individual representations to the Chief General Managt:t (HRD) to consider their cases for appointment as Junior Linerr tn in terms of the undertaking given by the respondents befor,: the Division Bench as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V\ . \.No.1434 of 2008 dared 10.11.2011 and SLP (Civil) No.15() )1-15110 of 2013 dated 25.02-2019, within two weeks from th: date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such representat ( ns being received, the respondents shall examine individua cases and if the petitioners were denied appointment in terr.; of Clause (6) (iv) (c) of the revised notification, the responderr s shall consider the cases of petitioners for appointment to he post of Junior Lineman and pass appropriate orders in ,r;cordance with law within a period of eight weeks thereafter. 7 10 5tl'l wP No.26971 2023 With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs." (D) Th r VIt I b 1 11 e r hereunder: *7. It is submitted that, the candidature of Writ Petitioners herein were considered in light of various orders and naving founa that petitioners are eligible were issued with uppoiit.unt orders dated 22.o2.202o by the Superintending iniin""r. (o), Nalgonda. In the appointment orders' it was .i"iiry.p".lri.d tnui th"y are appointed as Junior Linemen in the ti." t.uf" of pay of Rs.24340-39405 with usual allowances with effect from the date of actual joining into duty subject to the .onaitiont specified therein. The Writ Petitioners herein have -i."pi"J-tnJ terms and conditions of appointment order and joi""J tf-," service by submitting the joining report in February' 2020. Therefore Petitioners are not entitled to fixation of pay and ."nioiity on par with the contract lunior Linemen appointed in the year 20O7. 8. It is submitted that, the Notification issued in the year ZOO6 is for Contract Junior Line Man (in short CILM)' The ielected candidates who have satisfactorily completed two (2) V"uo of contract service were regularized in the cadre of ILM' Wf,".".t, the Writ Petitioners herein were appointed as JLM in the regular vacancy, therefore, the Petitioners cannot compare ih"r.,r6lu", with the candidates appointed in pursuance of the Notification in the Year 2007'

9. "nign It is submitted that the Notifications dated: 08-06- 2006/20-10-2006 are issued for appointment to the post of contract .Junior Linemen on yearly contract basis' However' ni"i"g-91"". an undertaking before the-Division Bench of the Court in W.A. No. !434 of 2008 and batch' the ion'Ui" .unoiout"r-*no are affected by clause 6 (iv) (c) were selected in frir.", without reference to vacancies available as per trtotiRcations issued in 2006 were also considered and appointed' ;h;t,-;;"; when the Judgment was passed on.10-11-2009' no direciions were given to treat them on par with the contract lunior Linemen who were appointed and working since the year 2007. The undertaking given before the Hon'ble Division Bench LL 5N,) wP No.26971 2023 was that the distribution company is willing to ( ive appointment to the candidates who are affected by Clause 5 iv) (c). The said undertaking was recorded by the Hon'ble Div sion Bench and speclfically directed the Distribution Compan, to appoint all candidates who have applied pursuant to the r )tification issued in the year 2006 and have passed Pole Climbin,S Test and fulfilled the other eligibility criteria without referenc: to and without insisting upon the fulfillment of Clause 6 (iv) (;) oF the revised notification dated 20-10-2006. Same was agairl -eiterated before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 1500 -15110 of 2013. 11. In reply to averments made in Pa -; Nos. 16 & 17, it is submitted that the Petitioners were issued /ith appointment orders dated 22-2-2O2O, wherein it was clearll ;pecified that the Petitioners are not entitled to fixation of rny seniority or monetary benefits on par with the pers() ls appointed in pursuance of the revised Notification d, rl :d 20-10-2006. Accepting the said undertaking, they have joine 1 the service and they were given the posting orders. The ; rid conditions of appointment have attained finality, as there i, no challenge to the appointment orders. The Petitioners ar! entatled to be considered for fixation of oay and other 11 :nefits in terms of the aoDo intment onlv. The Petitiorr, rs herein were considered only on the premise of undertakin 3 given before this Hon'ble Court and also before the Hon'ble Sup eme Court to the effect that the contract employees who are aff rcted by Clause 6 (iv) (c) will be appointed without reference to, nd insisting upon the Clause 6 (iv) (c) of the revised Notific.t on dated 20-10- 2006. Thus, they acquired right to be entitlec .o benefits of pay and other seniority only in terms of the appo r tment order from the date of their jorning in the service. In tact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court have also recorded that the Petitioners were appointed in the vacancies over and above tlt: vacancies which were notified in the year 2006. Therefore, th€ / cannot seek for parity on par with the other employees w t o were recruited earlier in the matter of seniority or for i ny other service benefits. " (E) The Clause '3' of the order issued in favour of the 1"t Detitionr No.SE/ OPlNLG/POIJAO /ADMIULI

22.O2 .2O2O which is also incorD() rated i 11 c f appoinlment vidq Memo .No.11 t7 l6/2 , dated e order of 7I L2 5N,l wP No.26971 2023 Aooointment issued to all ot er oetitioners in t he Dresent writ petition is extracted hereunder: "Clause 3 The candidate is not entitled to fixation of any seniority or monetary benefits. on par with the persons appointed in pursuance of the revised Notification dated 20.1O.2006. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

5. It is the specific case of the petitioners that respondents have issued a Recruitment Notification dated 08.06.2006, followed by a Revised Notification dated 20.10.2006 inviting applications for filling up of the posts of lunior Lineman on a Contract basis. In al|,2443 vacancies were notified of which 216 vacancies were allotted to Operation Circle Nalgonda. The petitioners herein had submitted their candidature, though the petitioners were successful and their names figured in the selection list, they were denled appointment. Consequently, the petitioners approached the Court by filing W.P.No.14416 of 2019 which was disposed of vide order dated 13.08.2019. In the said order, the petitioners therein were directed to submit individual representations to the 3'd respondent and upon such representations, the Respondents shall examine individual 13 SN,J WP No.25971 2023 cases and if the petitioners were denied appoint r rent in terms of clause 6 (iv)(c) of the revised notification, the ,-,,spondents shall consider possibilities for work to the post of lurirr Lineman. The undertaking given by the Respondents in W.A. t o.t434 of 2008 dated 10.11.2011 and SLp (Civit) No.15OO1-151t 0 or 2013 dated

25.O2.2019 was also recorded in the order. In (t, rmpliance to the said directions, petitioners submitted individua I representations and in pursuance thereof petitioners were apl) tinted as Junior Lineman vide proceedings dated ZZ.O2.2O2O arC joined service accord ingly. The learned counsel appearing on behalf ( f the petitioners mainly contends that the petitioners participate( in the selection process pursuant to the initial and revised noti..i :ations issued in the year 2006 but they were denied appointnr )nt even though their names figured in the selection list a rr j therefore the petitioners are entifled to be assigned senic,r ity on par with contract Junior Linemen appointed in the year 2007 and have their pay fixed accordingly and to that effect h; r even submitted detailed representations dated 02.03.2023 to t.:2nd respondent and when the said representations were kept pr nding before the 2nd and 3'd respondents. the petitioners weri: constrained to ) 14 SN,J wP No.26971 2023 invoke the jurisdiction of this Court by instituting W.P.N0.10343 ot 2023 and by an order dated 17.04.2023 passed in I.A.No.01 of 2023, this Court had directed respondents to dispose of the representation dated 02.02.2023 and in pursuance thereof, the 2nd respondent issued orders rejecting the request made by the petitioners vide impugned Memo dated 09.06.2023 solely on the ground that there was no direction from the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India about pay fixation and seniority and thereFore the request of the petitioners for assignment of seniority on par with contract lunior Linemen appointed in the year 2007 and have their pay fixed accordingly cannot be considered. 6 lea rn cou s la o t tioners contends that oetitioners re enti led for lief as r in the oresent writ oetition on the II wtn (i) Petitioners were denied appointment in the year 2007 and came to be appointed only in the year 2020, the delay is due to the respondents herein and cannot be attributed to the petitioners. 15 SN,J wP No.26971 202 3 (ii) Though petitioners were selected initi: ly in the year 2007, petitioners belated appointment had resulte:r in petitioners drawing lesser pay. (iii) Petitioners were eligible For appointrr r nt in the year 2007 itself i.e., much prior to the actual date of ;r rpointment but were appointed belatedly due to the litigation bisted by the respondents on the candidates. (iv) The petitioners are entitled to be apJr, rinted from the date on which other selected candidates wer€ appointed and have their sen iority fixed. Based on the aforesaid submissaons l( r rned aooearino on behalf of th e Detitioners r ontends that oetitioners are entitled for the qrant of reliel as oraved for bv the oetitioners in the oresent writ oetitio! . 7, Learned Senior designated counsel appear ng on behalf of the respondents placing reliance on the averm() lts made in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 5 in p; rticular patas 7, 8,9 and 11 (referred to and extracted abov:) contends that petitioners are not entitled for relief as prayed i,r in the present writ petition. 1 16 5N'l wP N0.2697 r 2021 0

8. A bare perusal of the record indicates that in the appointment orders issued to the petitioners dated 22.02.2020 by the Superintending Engineer Operation Circle, Nalgonda, it was clearly specified that petitioners are a.ppointed as lunior Linemen in the time scale of pay of Rs.24340-480-25780-695_ 29255-910-33805-1120-39405 with usual ailowances w.e.f the date of actual joining into duty subject to the conditions specified therein.

9. This Court however takes note of the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in its ludgment dated 10.11.2009 in W.A.No.1434 of 2008 and batch wherein in its conclusion it is observed as under: . "We also make it clear that all the selected and appointed respondents - Writ petitioners and others similarly situated would be entitled for all benefits on par with the persons who have been appointed as Junior Linemen as per condition No.6 (iv)(c) of the revised notification including regularization of their services as per rules and policy. "

10. This Court takes note of the fact that the writ petition filed by the petitioners nJrein on an earlier occasion i.e. W.P.No.14416 of 2Ol9 was disposed off vide its order dated t7 SN,J WP No.26971 2023

13.08.2019 in terms of the order of this Court in rV.P.No.14304 of 2019 dated 09.08.2019 (referred to and ext acted above) which in Fact specifically refers to the above I ivision Bench ludgment dated 10.11.2009 passed in W.A.No.434 of 2008 which had attained its finality. Hence, this Court ( pines that the subject issue needs reconsideration by the resp rndents Nos.2 and 3.

11. This Court opines that the plea in the o der impugned dated 09.06.2023 of the 2nd respondent herein ;r para 2.6 that there are no directions of the Hon'ble Supreme 3ourt given to treat the petitioners with all benefits i.e., pay, lromotion and seniority on par with the contract Junior Liner tan who were appointed in the year 2QO7, is not tenable in vier' of the specific observations of the division bench of this Court 1 its ludgment dated 10.11.2009 passed in W.A.Nos.1434 of 2t 0B (referred to and extracted above), which admittedly ev: r as per the respondent counsel had attained its finality and the said observations in express terms had indicated tha - all the selected and appointed respondents - writ petitioners anri others similarly situated parties would be entitled for all benefit!; on par with the persons who have been appointed as Junior I ineman as per 18 SN,' wP 0.26971 2021 t condition No.6 (iv) (c) of the revised notification inctuding regularization of their services as per rules and policy. L2. h o n Ar d e d

10. L4 J n e U r d e v 9 4 of 4 u nder: 1 m h n tv n u e f !o r a the Consti tutio n of India. Thi Co e k r a A mo n e1 h Drrnc iole needs to be r m r d m r would be lv beca use oth gr stmr e c to be treated differentlv.,, at mer e r f s rs n rlv situated L2. TAKTNG INTo coNs DERAT ON: A) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, B) The submissions made by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitaoners and the tearned appearing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, 19 SN,] WP No.26971 2023 C) The Order impugned dated 09.O6.2023 issued by the 2"d respondent (referred to and extrar: :ed above), D) The order of this Court datec 13.O8.2O19 passed in favour of the Writ Petitioners , rn an earlier occasion when the petitioners approached :his Court by filing W.P.No.t44L6 of 2O19 (referred to i nd extracted above), E) The order dated O9.O8.2O1SI passed in W.P.No.t43O4 of 2O19 (referred to and extr;t:ted above), F) The Counter affidavit filed by Rer; rondents I to 5, in particular, paras 7 | 8, g and 11 rre extracted hereunder: G) The Clause '3' of the order ol appointment issued in favour of the 1't petitioner vide Memo No.SE/ OPl N LG / pO / J AO I ADM I UL / D. No. I 1 i:' / 6 / 20, Dated 22.02.2O20 (referred to and extracterl above), The writ petition is allowed. The orler impugned dated O9.O6.2O23 issued by the 2nd respondr nt is set aside and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directerr I to reconsider the petitioners representation dated 02.O3,2O23 seeking to fix pay and seniority on par with the r: rndidates who were appointed in the year 2OOl as per conriition No.6 (iv) (c) of the Revised Notification (referred to and extracted above) in accordance to law, duly taking into 20 5N'l wP No.2697 t 2023 consaderation the division bench judgment dated 1O.11.2OO9 in W.A.Nos. 1434 ot 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above) which had in fact attained its finality, and also the observataons of the Apex Court in its Judgment dated 17.1O.2O14 in Civil Appeat No.9849 of 2O14, within a period of six (O6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, in accordance to law in conformity with the princaples of naturat justice and pass appropriate orders and duly communicate the decision on petitioners representation dated 02.O3.2023 to the petitioners herein. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/- B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLT NANDA (For His Ladyships kind perusal) To, '1. The Chairman and Managing Director, The Southern Power Distribution 9ompany of Telangana Limited, Corporate Office, Mint Compound, Hyderabad. 2. The Chairman and Managing Director, The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited, Corporate Office, Mint Compound, Hyderabad.

3. The Chief General Manager (HRD), TSSPDCL, Corporate Office, IVlint Compound, Hyderabad-500082

4. The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Nalgonda, TSSPDCL, Nalgonda 5. The Superintending Engineer, Operation, Suryapet, TSSPDCL, Suryapet. 6. The Principal Secretary, Energy Department, The State of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. Affairs, New Delhi.

7. 11 LR Copies f. ihe0;dJt-Stcretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, "rstice and Company g ine S""i"irry, Telangrna Advocates Association' -ibrary, High Court 1O.One Ce to sRl D. SUDHARSHAN, Advocate [oPUC] 11.One CC to SMT. K. UDAYA SRl, Advocate [OPUCI iZ. i*" CCJ toOp FOR ENERGy, High Court for theStat,: of Telangana. [OUTI 13. Two CD Copies Buildinos. Hvderabad. BN \ HIGH COURT DATED:3011012025 ORDER WP.No.26971 of 2023 i!. lT4 :"F r 0 r l$ ?l?l 2: , L c o * f I ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS