Disposed

Chatari Nagendram v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Mar 2024WP/4126/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a daily wage sweeper appointed in 1983, sought regularization after obtaining SSC. Proposals for regularization were sent to the Regional Director years ago but remained pending. The High Court, with party consent, directed the Regional Director to act on the proposals and pass orders within four weeks without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No. 5 to take action on proposals sent by Respondent No. 4 regarding regularization of petitioner's services and pass orders within four weeks.

Chatari Nagendram Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JI.]STICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:4126 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Chatari Nagendram,^{S/o Sri Pullaiah, Aged 59 years, presently workingas} NMR Sweeper,^{Madhira Municipality,Madhira, Khammam District}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of^{Telangana,rep. by its Principal} Secreta ry Municipal Administration^{and UrbanDevelopmentDepartment,} Dr. B. R, Ambedkar Telangana^{Secretariat, Hyderabad5OO022}

¶12

The State^{of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, FilqlceDepartment,} Dr. B.R.^{Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat,Hyderabad 500 022}

¶13

The Commissioner^{and Drector, Municipal Administration, Hyderabad}

¶14

The Commissioner,^{Madhira Municipality, Madhira,Khammam District}

¶15

The^{Regional Director, Municipal Administration, Warangal,Warangal District}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition^{under Article226 of lhe Constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiled therewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue^{an appropriate writ, order or Direction, more particularlyonein} the nature of^{Writ of Mandamus, to declarethe inpugned action of the} respondents in^{not regularizingthe services of the petitionerin the cadre of} Sweeper in^{termsof the proposals submittedby the 4th respondentvide letter} No.^g0 / 2018^{dated3010612018and further alsoin terms of catena of decisions} of the Hon,ble^{Apex court followed by the Hon'bbcourt as illegal, arbitraryand} unconstitutional^{under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndiaand} consequently^{direct the respondentsto take all thosenecessarysteps to pass} appropriate^{proceedings regularizingthe services of the petitionerwith all} attendant benefits^{immediately before attainingthe age o{ superannuation.}

¶18

lA NO: { OF 2024

¶19

Petition under section 1 51 cPC praying that in the circumstance,s stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pk:ased to direct the respondents to take all those necessary steps to pass appropriate proceedings regularizing the services of the petitioner with all attendant benefits forthwith and in the interregnum continue the petitioner in service till attaining the age of superannuation^{(61 years)} on par with regular government employees, pending disposal of writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.RAM REDDY

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

¶25

THE^{HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I{ARTHIK}

¶26

WRIT PE"TITION^{No. 4126 of2024}

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This^{Writ Petition is filed by the petitionerseeking the}

¶29

following^relief:

¶30

".. .to^{issue an appropriateWrit Order or Direction} more^{particularlyone in the nature of Writof} Mund"-u"^{todeclare the impugned action of the} .esoondents^{innot regularizing the servicesof the} .,"titlo.r.. in^{the cadre of Sweeper in terms of t]"e} l.oposals^{submitted by the 4th respondentvide letter} fo".b0/zots^{d'ated30/06/2o18 and further also in} ierms^{of catena of decisions of the Honble Apex Court} iotto*"a^{by the Hon'bleCourtas illegal, arbitraryand} unconstitutional^{under Article 14, 16 and 21 of the} Con"titution^{of India and consequentlydirect the} resoondents^{to take all thosenec€ssarysteps to pass} or,.rropriate^{proceedingsregularizing the services of the} "'"iitlo"..^{wifi all attendant benefitsimmediately} Lefore^{attainingthe age of superannuation ald to} grant such^{other relief"' "}

¶31

Heard^{Mr. K'Ram Reddy,learned counselfor the} petitioner^{and learned Govemment Pleader for Services for} respondents.^{With the consentof both the parties,the Writ} Petiuon^{is taken up for disposal at the admissionstage'}

¶32

I*arned counsel^{for the petitioner submits that the} petitroner^{was initially appointed as Daily WageSweeperuide} proceedings^{in Rc.No.A2/924l8l, dated O2'08'1983 issued by} the then^{Gram Panchayat,Madhiraand continuesto work till} today,^{even after the} erstwhile Gram Panchayat,^Madhirawas \

wp-4t2d_tf2i

i l

made as Nagara panchayat and later as Municipality. r,earned counsel further submits that the pedtioner has obtained Secondary Schoo.l Certificate (ApOSS) and continues ' his service without any break, till today. Therefore, keeping in view the service of the petitioner, respondent No.4 has sent proposals to respondent No.S uzde letter No.gO/201g, dated 30'06'2018 along with letter No.sz2/ r /2or4 dated 3o.06.20.t8, with a request to accord permission for regularizing the services of the pedtioner on the ground that the petitioner has completr-.d a continuous service of more than S years artd 6 months up ;:o 25. I 1 . f 993. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.S has not taken aly action on the aforesaid proposals sent by respondent No.4 ald the same is pending consideration al; on date. Therefore, tI learned counsel prays this court tc direct respondent No .5 to take necessary action on the proposals sent by respondent No.4 ' u 'qe tet er ide le t t No'80/2018, ,^-^ dated 30.06.20rg alono --, /t/2o14, dated 30.06.2018 and pass #:::::"..".r,

¶37

Learned Governn t Pleader for Services appearing for the respondents suu.r] litted t}lat respondent No'S wiII tal<e necessary action on th. ,..,-^.1'^^'l:*t"t otooo"'" sent by respondent No.4 utd.e Ietter No.g./2org, o, rted 30.06.20I8 aJong wrttr letter

¶38

PK, J wP-4126_2024

¶39

¶40

No.572/t/2O 14, dated 30.06.2018 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law

¶41

In view of the above submissions made by the learned 'counsel appearing for the respective parties, without going into merits of the case , this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this Writ Petition directing respondent No.S to take appropriate action on the proposals sent by respondent No.4 uiCe letter No.8O/2018, dated 30.06.2018 along with tetter No.572/l/2014, dated 30.06.2018 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶43

closed.

¶44

SD/-N. CHANDRA SEKHAR ASSTSTANUIEJiISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI&oFFICER

¶45

To,

¶46

The Principal Secretary, Municpal Administration and Urban Development Department, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana 5OO 022

¶47

The Principal Secretary, Finance Departrnent, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, State ofTelangana 500 022

¶48

The Commissioner and Director, Municipal Administratbn, Hyderabad

¶49

The Commissioner, Madhira Municipality, Madhira, Khammam District

¶50

¶51

¶52

5' The Regionar Director, Municipar Administration, warangar, warangal District

¶53

One CC to SRt K.RAM REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl

¶54

' Iyo".:r3:o'ffiton^{sERVtcES, Hish} ;;,.

¶55

the state or rerarsana at

¶56

Two CD Copies

BSR BS

t I

CC TODAY

I I I !

HIGH COURT

DATED: 11t0il2024

ORDER

---,i':=::-1
. ^:..^ -\ J
:. ., I
0
oqJ
D 12 ilitq ?,1i1
*

¶65

WP.No.4126 of ZO2t

¶66

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,

¶67

WITHO UT COSTS

¶68

\3 ,-<br>'

Chatari Nagendram v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chatari Nagendram v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Surender Goud Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

B.Brahmaiah, Vs The Govt of Telangana

Paasi Sukhlal Vs The Chairman and Managing Direction

Savithri Karre Vs The State of Telangana

Gaddam Nagesh Vs State of Telangana

Kunja Adamma Vs The State of Telangana