Disposed

Daram Satyanarayana and Another v. The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Telangana HC8 Jan 2020WP/546/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition filed by full-time sweepers for regularization of their services. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' case for regularization in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 20.02.1994 and the Supreme Court judgment in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directive to respondents to consider petitioners' case for regularization of services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 20.02.1994 within eight weeks.

Daram Satyanarayana and Another Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶2

W.P.No.546 of 2020

¶3

ORDER

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶5

“to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus (i) declaring the in action of the respondents in not regularizing the petitioner’s services on par with proceedings of first respondent dt 28.08.2018 is arbitrary, illegal, irregular against to the principles of natural justice, equity, fair play and unconstitutional (ii) direct the respondents herein to regularize petitioner’s service against the post of “Office Subordinate” with retrospective effect (iii) to fix the wages/consolidated remuneration at Rs.13,000/ per month in consonance of G.O.Rt.No.639, dt 06/12/2019 and (iv) pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. Therefore, I further pray this Hon’ble Court may be please to direct the respondents to pay wages/consolidated remuneration at Rs.13,000/- per month till the disposal of the main writ petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶6

Heard Sri Madhusudhan Reddy Kasi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri G.Narender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent.

¶7

The petitioners are working as full time sweepers with the respondents since 1987 and they have been discharging their duties to the best satisfaction of their superiors. Their

¶8

¶9

grievance is that the respondents are not regularizing their services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 20.02.1994.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 20.02.1994. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi¹ . It is prayed that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services in terms of the law laid down

¶11

by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (1 supra).

¶12

Learned Government Pleader as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services would be considered by the respondents by duly taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (1 supra) and also in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 20.02.1994 and appropriate orders would be passed.

¶13

1 2006(4) SCC 1

¶14

¶15

Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that this Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services by duly taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (1 supra) and also in tune with the policy of the State Government and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶16

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand

¶17

closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
Date: 08.01.2020
rkk

Daram Satyanarayana and Another v. The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daram Satyanarayana and Another v. The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Janardhan Vs The State of Telangana

Racha Uppalaiah Vs The Telangana Power Generation Corporation Limited and 3 others

Chippakurthy Kanakaiah Vs The Chairman and Managing Director, Singareni Collieries Company Limited and 3 others

Smt. E.Ratnamma, Hyderabad Vs Chief Executive, Nfc, Hyderabad and Another

Chief Executive, Nuclear Fuel Complex, Vs Smt. B. Anasuya, and Another

D. Prabhuvaran, Vs The State of Telangana