High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of ...RESPONDENTS WRIToFMANDAMUSdeclaringtheactionoftherespondentsinnotregularizing the petitioners services, retrospectively on completion of five years of service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance and Planning FW PCJI Department daled 22-4- lgg4iSillegal,arbitraryandunconstitutionalapartfromviolationofPrinciplesof Neural Justice and consequently direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization of their services retrospectively on completion of fiveyearsofcontinuesserviceinthedepartmentw.e.f.5-4-l9B8forthepurpose of pension and pensioner benefits by following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in case of B.Srinivasulu Vs' Nellore Municipal Corporation in Civil AppealNo.6318of2015dated17-8-2olSandtheJudgmentoftheHon,bleHigh courtinWPNo.33936of2011andbatchdated2.5-2olSwithallconsequential benefits. IA NO: 1 0F 2025 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for regularization of the petitioners services retrospectively on completion of five years of continuous service in the Department w.e'f. 5-4-1988 for the purpose of pension and pensioner benefits by following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in case of B. Srinivasulu Vs. Nellore Municipal corporations in civil Appeal No' 6318of2015dated17.B-2ol5andtheJudgmentoftheHon.bleHighcourtinWP No. 33936 of 2011 and batch dated 2-5-2018 with all consequential benefits pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.MALAHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-||| WRIT PETITIO N NO: 27621 OF 2025 Between: 1 Kannevena Bogaiah, S/o K.Mallaiah.Ageo ggog o.z. ygap'.Q9c $etifq 9-9,Pf SC Bovs Hoste] Kolanoor, Peddapalli District Fi/o H.No.3-40/3' Rangampally, Peddaballi Mandal Peddapalli District. Edla Narsamma, Wo Ramaiah Aged about 62 years, Occ Relired Cook 'Peddapalli F/o -10-4-337, Subashnagar' Karimnagar, WftC (Girls) Karimnagar district 2 J Mohammed Samad. Sio Mohammed Sarwar Aged about 65 years, Occ. Retired cook Gove SC Bovs.H"iiei kiivairliili"ilti,"oo"pari District R/o 5- 12-46/A. Hanuman lvransa?, ni",iilrioiol ririlr"ai inol oi.tri"t. .,.PET]TIONERS AND Department tS Sedretaiiat,-iry?ur"U,r,i.'"'" Devetopment Departft ent r.S. -$Ar"i;ili'iiliijins!, l The State of reranoana,-Rep.by its principar secretary, schedure caste 2. The State of Telanoana,. Rep..by its principal Secretary Finance and planning 3. The Director, Schedule Ct;te Qevelopment Department Telangana Sankshema Bhavanam uasao tjnk, Htj;,^;'d;;". 4. The District Collector, peddapalli District at peddapalli 5 The District schedure caste Deveropment Department officer, peddapari, Hyoeraoao '' Peddapalli district. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articte 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of wRlr oF MANDAMUS decraring the action of the respondents in not regurarizing the petitioners services, retrospectivery on compretion of five years of service in terms of G.O.Ms.No.2.l2 Finance and planning FW PC.ll Department dated 22-4-1994 is illegal, arbitrary and u nconstitutional apart from violation of Principles of Neurar Justice and consequenfly direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for regurarization of their services retrospectivery on completion of five years of continues service in the department w.e.f. 5_4-1ggg for the purpose of pension and pensioner benefits by folrowing the raw raid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in case of B.srinivasuru vs. Neilore lVrunicipar corporation in civir Appear No.6318 of 2o1s dated 17-8-2015 and the Judgment of the Hon'bte High court in wp No. 33936 of 2011 and batch dated 2_s-2o18 with all consequential benefits. lA NO:1 oF 2025 Petition under section 1sl cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct respondents to consider the craim of the petitioner for regurarization of the petitioners services retrospectivery on compretion of five years of continuous service in the Debarment w.e.f. 5-4-1988 for the purpose of pension and pensioner benefits by following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in case of B. Srinivasulu Vs. Nellore Municipal Corporations in Civil Appeal No. 6318 of 2015 dated 17-8-2015 and the Judgment of the Hon'ble High court in WP No. 33936 of 2011 and batch dated 2-5-2018 with all consequential benefits pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI A.MALAHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-i|| The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I j PK,J Wp-27590 & 27621-2025 2 the writ Petidons are disposed of permitting the petitioners to submit representation/ s to the respondents redressing their grievance within a period of one (1) u'eek frort the date of receipt of a copy of thrs order' Upon receipt of such representation / s ' the respondents are directed to consider the same' in the light of the judgment, dated 01 02'2024' passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W A No'71 of 2024 and pass appropriate orders thereon' strictlY in accordance with preferablY within a Period communicatc a copy thercof to thc pctltloners law, as exPe diliouslY wecks therealte r and ol six (06) possible, AS Miscellaneous petitions pending' if any' shall stand closed -/ To, There shall bc no order as to costs /ffRUE COPY// uildings, HYd I Secretary, erabad, State Finance and SDI B.REKHA RANI S TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICE R 1. The PrinciPal Secretary' Schedule Caste DeveloPm ent Department T'S of Telangana Planning De partment TS Secretariat Secretariat B 2. The Pri nciPa Hvderabad, State of Telangana. 3. The Director, Schedule Ca ste Development Department Telangana Sankshem a Bhavanam Masab Tank, HYd erabad 4. The District Collector, Jagtial District at Jagtial 5. The District Co llector, PeddaPa lli District at PeddaPalli 6. The District Schedule Caste, Development Department Officer, Jagtial, Jagtial Schedule Caste Development Department Officer' Peddapalli' district 7. The District rt for the State of Telangana at 8. One CC toS RI A.MALAHAR I Two CCs to ep roR SeRvt CES-lll, High Cou RAO, Advocate IOPUC] PeddaP alti d istrict Hvd erabad Iouri CD CoPies 1 O. Two BSR N/ ,&f THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTIIIK WRIT PETITION Nos .2759OAND2 762 toF 202s coMMON ORDER: Since the 1is rn both the Writ petitions is one and the same, they are being heerrd together and are disposed oI by way of this common order 2, Aggrieved b,y the action of the respondents in not regularizing Lhe petitroners'scrviccs rc trospcc tir,,cly on competition of five years ln terms of Ci.O.Ms.No.2l2, [,.inancc & planning (F,W pC.ll]) Departmcnt, dated 22.O4.1994, thcse Writ petitions are tiled.

3. Heard Sri A.Malhar Rao, learned counsei for the petitioners and learned Government Pleadcr lor Services-lII appearing for the respondcnts.

4. Learned counscl for the pctitroners submits that the ljs in both the Writ Peritions is squrareJl. covered by the adjudication of this Court in its order, dated '21.03.2024 in W.p.No.752t of 2024 and requested this Court to pass similar order in the present Writ Petitions also. The same is not seriously disputed by learned GOvefnment Pleader appearing for thc respondents

5. Havins "*i ::^:;,..:;::T:T-;-::,'::;:::::" da[co ' 'h" order rn '"- a\tK ?- i-a =- i i l i HIGH COURT DATED: 1210912025 CC TODAY . ',;\, '--.t. 1 , :j .,,; s' q$ ,:, 3 { COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.27590 and 2762'l of 2025 :ij ), r ?'. ...:-'- DISPOSING OF BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONS' WITHOUT COSTS q.