1, G.Sailu v. 'l . The State of Telangana

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 writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing petiiioners services in terms of orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 1n Uma Devi's case (2006 (4) SCC 1) from the date of date of completion of 10 years of service as followed by this Hon'ble Court in WP No.2437712007 dt. 8.9.20'10 (2O11 (1) ALD 234) as confirmed in WA No.782l20'10 dt. 10.6.2013 and also in WP No. 2721712017 dt. 19.9.20'1 7 (2018 (2) ALD 282) and in WP No.23057/2019 d|.21 .4.2020 ( 2020 (4) ALD 379) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court orders in Dharam Singh Case Reported in 2O2S ti ry Suit (SC) i122 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the principles of natural jur; :e and consequen y direct the respondents to regularize petitioners servic: from the date of completion of 10 years as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Co,_ t in Uma Devi,s case as followed by this Hon'ble Court in WP No.2721il2o1 I tt. 1 9.9.2017 and rn several cases as referred supra with all attendant benefits lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c r the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cor- r direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitio r from the date of completion of 10 years in terms of law lairl Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case and the Hon'ble Sup r Dharam Singh Case Reported in Z02S Law Suit (SC) 1122, i of the writ petition. ,umstances stated in may be pleased to rrs for regularization lown by the Hon'ble me Court orders in rnding final disposal lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 cPc praying that in the cir umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou - may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider our claim for regularizat t .r of our services by passing orders on representations dt. 3'l .10.2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. BHASKARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents Nos.1 & 3: Gp FOR MCPL Al) lN & URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondents No.2: Gp FOR FINANCE & p _ TNNtNG Counsel for the Respondents No.4: SRI RAMESH CHILLA, S 3 FOR CORPORATION The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I(ARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.32847 of 2025 ORDER: Aggrieved by the inaction of the rcspondents in regularizing the services of the petitioners in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State oJ Karnataka u. Untq. Deuil, the present writ petition is hled.

2. Heard Sri B. Bhaskara Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; learned Government Plcader for Services-I, on bchalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 3; learned Government Pleader for Services- III, on behalf of respondent No-2; and Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4. With their consent, the writ peiition is taken up for disposal at admission stage.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were initially appointed in rcspondent No.4 Municipality on daily- wage basis in the last grade post, and were extended the minimum time scale of pay by the Government vide Memo dated 13.06.2011. However, in spite of putting in more than (35) years of service on daily-wage basis, and although there are a number of existing , (2006) 4 SCC 1 .w*T re.ry X - 2 vacancies fallen vacant in respondent No.4 lI rcspondents are nol considering the case of th: regularization on the sole ground that they had not 1r servicc as on 25.11.1993, in terms of G.O.ll PK, J 'P.No.3284t of 2O2S nicipalitr,, the pctitionels for t in (5) ycars of .No.212 dated

22.O4.7994. Therefore, the petitioners submitted thol to the responde nts on 31.10.2025, seeking regul:L rcprescntation zation of their servlces in lerms of paragraph No.53 of the dccisrc r of the Hon'ble Apcx Court in Uma Deui (supra). However, no acti(lr.l thercon so [ar. Thcreforc, learned counsel seeks il has becn taken uLgencc of this Court to direct the respondents to consider the reprc ,enlation of the petitioners dated 3 1 , 1O.2025, and pass necessary (,1 lers withilr the time-frame as may be stipulated by this Court.

4.' Learncd Government pleaders as well as the .( uned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents fairl.. ;ubmit that the respond.ents u'ill consider the representation of the I 31.1O.2025, ald pass appropriate orders in accordarc :tilioners dated rvith lar.r.,

5. Having regard to the submissions made by lee r red counsel for the respectivc parties, the Writ petition is disposed ,i directing the respondents to consider the representation of the p titioners dated 31.70.2025, ald pass appropriate oiders thert: n, strictly in .a';i 3 PK, J W.P.No.32847 oJ 2O2S accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs. SD/.M. JAWAHAR REDDY A SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The Principal Secretarv. MA & UD Department, Sec Hyderabad. \ Thd Priricipal Secretary, Finance & planning Department, Secretariat t,uflotngs, Hyoerabad. tariat Buildings, The Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration, AC Guards, Hyderabad. The Commissioner, Manchiryal Corporation, Manchiryal, Manchiryal District, One CC to SRI B.BHASKARA REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl One CC to SRI RAMESH CH|LLA, SC FOR CORPORATTON [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV, High Court for the State ofTelangana at Hyderabad . [OUT] Two CCs to GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING, Hioh Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad . [OUT] Two CD Copies To, 1 2

5. b- B.

9. PMK LS I I t I I I i I HIGH COURT DATED:1 111112025 f ffii{ r*- itiB m l_-\ * o C) 1 + ORDER WP.No.32847 o12025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS b a. \ d, 1\\