Allowed

B.Jacob Prem Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Jul 2025WP/21825/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A retired primary school headmaster sought Selection Grade Scale and arrears based on a 2010 Tribunal order confirmed by a Division Bench in 2015. The respondents had rejected his claim citing pending writ petitions. The High Court held the rejection was mechanical without application of mind and directed reconsideration within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings quashed/declared illegal; respondents directed to reconsider grant of Selection Grade Scale with arrears per recommendation dated 14.02.2017 within four weeks and pass reasoned or

B.Jacob Prem Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[32521

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO

¶3

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 21825 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

B.Jacob Prem Kumar, S/o. B.lt/leshach, Aged 78^years, Occ.^{Retd. Primary} School Head lvlaster, Vallabhapur, [\rlakloor, Nizamabad^{Districtand R/o. Flat} NIo.310, H.No.7-2-1796, Santhi ViharApartment, Street No.2, C-Zech^Colony, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad-500018.

¶10

...pETtTtoNER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Director of School Education, Government of Telangana,^Nampally, Hyderabad

¶14

The District Educational Officer, Nizamabad District, Nizamabad,^Telangana

¶15

,..RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that^{in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings Rc.No. 666118212017, dated^{29lO1l2O'19issued by the} Respondent No.3 as reiterated by the Respondent No.2 through^Proceedings Rc.No.1284lSer.lV-212O15, dated 1O10412019 and the^{proceedings ofthe} Respondent NO.3 in Rc.No.6661/B212017, dated^{1610412019 and 08/06/2020 as} illegal, arbitrary, violative of Art. 14,^'16 and 300,4 of^{the Constitutionof lndia and} consequentially to direct the respondents to^{grant Selection Grade Scalealong} with arrears as recommended by the Respondent No.3 through^his 1r.No.6661/B2l2008, dated't 410212017.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶18

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to grant selection Grade scale along with arrears as recommended by the Respondent No.3 through his Lr. No.6661 lB2l2oo1. dated 1410212017 by suspending the impugned proceedings Rc.No. 66611F.212017, dated 2910112019 issued by the Respondent No.3 pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI p.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR SERVICES I

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

HON'BLE^{MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶22

WRIT PETITIO No 2ta 50^{F 2O2L}

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

learned counsel^aPPearlng Heard Sri^{P.V.Krishnaiah,} on behalf^{of the} Petitioner and learned^Assistant Government^{Pleaderfor Services-I appearing on behalf of} the resPondents.

¶25

2 Th itio r r c d e u s kin r

¶26

as under:

¶27

"...to issue a writ^{order or direction more in the nature of} writ of Mandamus^{declaringthe Proceedings Rc'No'} 666U82/2017,^{dated 2g/Ol/2org issued bvthe} Respondent^{No. 3 as reiterated by the RespondentNo 2} through^{ProceedingsRc'No'1284/5er'LV-2l2Ol5'dated} LO/04/2Olg^{and the proceedings of the Respondent} No.3 in Rc.No.6661/82/2017,^{dated 16/04/2019and} OB/0612020^{as illegal,arbitrary, violative of Arts' 14' 16} and 3OO-A^{of theConstitution ofIndiaand} consequentially^{todirect the respondents togrant} Selection^{Grade Scale along witharrearsas} recommended^{by the RespondentNo'3 throughhis} Lr. No.6661/B212OOB,^{daled 74/02/2017and to pass '"}

il II

SN. J

3 The a e the ttone ln brief s er the ver nts a e! a VI f db h e itio eri s o oft re t r ti n sa er: -

¶32

The petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Board Teacher on 08.t2.L969, subsequenily promoted as school assistant in the year 1999 and thereafter promoted as prirn a ry school head master on 08.05.2000, and retired from service on 31.10.2000.

¶33

It is further the case of the petitioner that while the petitioner was working as SGT, the government issued G.O.Ms.No.173 dated 13.06.1969 introducing the Selection Grade Scale, however the same was abolished completely through G.O.Ms.No.191 dated 11.11.1992 and proposed to recover the benefits extended to SGTs under the said scheme. Aggrieved by the above said recovery process the petitioner along with five(S) others filed R.p.No.15669 to 75674 of 1989 before the A'p'Administrative Tribunar ancJ the Tribunar vide order, dated 24.L2.tgg3 allowed the said petition by quashing the orders of recovery. Thereafter, the Respondent no.3 submitted proposals to Respondent no.2 seeking appropriate orders from the government, however, the claim of the

-('

SN, J

petitioner was rejected by the^{2nd respondentvide proceedings} dated 18.11.2009.

¶40

Aggrieved by the said^{order, thepetitionerfiled} o.A.No.2g22of2010beforetheA.P.AdminstrativeTribunaland the same was disposed^{of by an order dated 05'05'2010on the} lines of order^{passed in O.A.No.4361 of 2009 and the benefits of} the said order^{was extended to the petitioner'Thereafter,the} respondents filed^{W.P.No22506 of 2010 to assail the order} passed in O.A.No.2922 of^{2OlO but this Court was pleasedto} dismiss the^{same by an order dated 26.03'2015'}

¶41

It is further the^{case of the petitioner that the respondent} no.3 submitted^{proposals for sanction of payment of arrears to} the^{petitioner and others, however the caseof the fetitioner was} rejected vide^{proceedingsdated 01.09.2018'Aggrieved by the} same the^{petitionermade arepresentation to theznd} respondentseekingtoconsiderthecaseofthepetitionerandin pursuance to the said representation^{2nd respondent directedthe} 3'd respondent to^{consider the case of the petitionerfor} selection grade scale^{in terms of the order passedin O'A'No'} 2922 of 2010 dated 16'04.2010'^{It is the specific case of the} petitioner that in spite of the clear directions^{from the 2nd}

SN. J

respondent, the 3'd respondent rejected the case of the petitioner vide proceedings Rc.No.6661/B 3/2017, dated 29.0L.2019 on the ground of pendency of cases in High Court with regard to the said matter and subsequenfly the same was upheld by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 10.04.2019. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.

¶46

4 PER USED TH E REC ORD A. The relevantD orti on of he ord er of And hra Pr de h Administratrve Tribunal at ]lv erab da o5.o5. 20 ss di o A. o 2 of of v r f e e to er s ra d e un r:-

¶47

The Tribunal after examining the hacts and circumstances of the case directed^-tt e Respondents to extend the benefit of selection g.aae siaie to- the applicant and consequent to the orders oi tn.r.,Ornui Respondents 1 and B issued the above proceeaing, in loilptiance of the orders of the Tribunal. Though tht c;;.enr issued orders in GO.Ms.No.4 unO- CO.lls.fvo.l9'r regarding abolition of the scheme of selection gi.A" urO instructing th9 concerned not to entertain itre- ipJrications for el-Tlion grade posts as the empfovee!' were given sufficient -time to represent their casei, b!- virtue of the orders of the Tribunal, proceeOingi'r;J.e issued by Respondents 1 and B. When there ii-u Oi.".tion from the I:,bylu,t^{the Treasury authoritiesu." ,otlrpposed} to raise an objection by virtue of co.Ms.No.+ anO C6lllr.No.191 as :l:-:f9.:.:.^{were passed ov tr,"-i.iL-riu]"onz:_s_rsss} suosequent to the issue of the said GOs., Therefore, the

)

SN. J

objections^{raised by the Treasury Authoritiesare} untenable.

¶53

In the result,^{the OA is allowed'The applicantis entitled} to revision of^{pension and other retirementbenefits as per} pioceeOings dated 2.7.L999^{issued by the 1st respondent} 5s-calculaied by^{the Bth Respondentthrough Proceedings} dt. 29.9.1999.^{VMAs are dismissed'No orderas to costs.''}

¶54

In view of the^{above, the benefit of the above orderis} extended to the^{applicantherein also with the declaration} that the applicant^{in this OA is entitled to revisionof} pension and'other retrial^{benefitsas per the proceedings'} dated 02.07.1999^{issued by the respondent, as calculated'}

¶55

B T D VI io Be h u me of his u at 2 3 15 ss tn .P.N .225 & 22531 ot 10

¶56

extracted hereunder:-

¶57

O.A.No.2292 of^{2010 and O'A'No'2181of 2010 were} disposed of^{by the Tribunal,by its orders dated 05'05 2010} unO fO.O+.2010^{respectively, specificallyre.cording the} submission of^{both the counsel for the appliGntqnd} lle learned Government^{Pleader that the lssue involved ln tne} O.As. was covered^{by the orderpassed by the Tribunalin} o.A.No.4361^{0f 2oo5 dated 19.08.2009'}

¶58

While the learned^{Government Pleader for Services} would make a^{feeble attempt to contend beforeus that the} tearned Government^{Pleader before the Tribunal ought not} to have^{given his consent, the affidavitsfiled in support of} both the Writ^{Petitionsare silent regarding action, if any'} taken-by the Government^{against the learned Government} Pleader before^{the Tribunal for his having givenhis consent} without instructions^{from the Government' In the absence} of any such averment^{in the affidavitsfiled in supportof} both the Writ Petitions,^{we see no reason to examine} whether or not the^{learned GovernmentPleaderbefore the}

¶59

¶60

SN, .I

¶61

I; ffi : l, Tf #f l, if # [,,"J i;,1?,,fl? ".i3 i::f; 3,-,: 0,, n " Peti tions, As the are ordercons, ent under orderschallen 9e in both these Writ disc retion uncjer Article 226 of we the see Consno titutreason ron to of India exe rctseto inte rfere. The Writ petitions fail and are a ccord in sty, dismrssed. Miscell aneous petiti ons pendin9, if 6ny, sha ll c| so stand dismissed. There sha ll be no ord er as to costs.

¶62

c T n atio n u o e e vi roc e I r 66 B2 I 4. 7 rss ue b extracted herthereu neser:-on dent N o.3 th res ondent No.2i s

¶63

t#i' i##ii:;t^{rf i:'n:lF j,Ji} jin#"x "i,x t ir #,miiiif ffi tr",ii;tr iir,ffi ,1i.,;,;;,4!;-'{:ll";;l^{j#ii,''.','i.,;tr} p"v"'*":;:;"f^{,,,,[i,":.1"#"[,"[il:[::i;i;} t rade Sca le. if ;6'{,!i1'!iil#:i:r,ffi ${unl::["ii,",,:':'r:]

¶64

Fu.rther, it is submitted ;: ; L i t F',: t&, 1;*?i :[:'i Ft,.s',:ffil[':', ff iil? No.21'1/2ot^-;;,' l.",T""'il fil# ;ul:;a;: "tii# lii3'f,j, =lr!'i r%1?_.5;l8. *or8fo"o#"i,i 3'^ ll

SN, J

2922/2010 Dt: 05.05.2010^{as the applicantsare entitled to} revision of Pension and other benefits of^{Selectron Grade} Sca le.

¶70

It is to submit that, in the^{above two O'Asorders were} issued for^payment of arrears^{in respectof the applicants} in the said O.As vlde Hon'ble^{APAT.Hyderabad OrdersDt:} 16-04-2010 in O.A.No.21B1l2010^{and 05-05-2010in} o.A.No.2922 /20t0.

¶71

It is to submit that, a^{Writ petition bearingNo:} 22531/2OlO was filed by^{the Departmentagainstthe} Orders of Hon'ble^{APAT, Hyderabadin O.A.No.21B1l2010} and W.P.No.225O6|2OLO^{against the Orders of Hon'ble} APAT, Hyderabad^{in O.A. No. 2922/2OL0.}

¶72

It is to submit that, the^{Hon'ble Court for the State oF} Telangana, Hyderabad^{in its common Order Dt:26-03-2015} has d-ismissed the Writ^{Petition bearing No:22506/2010} and W.P.No 2253L12010^{stating that' the Writ Petition} failed and are all accordingly^dismissed".

¶73

It is to submit that,^{the Director of School Education,} Telangana, Hyderabad^{vide the reference cited, has} directed to submit a^{detailed reportwith Speciflcremarks'}

¶74

In this connection, it^is to^{submit that, the then Dy'} Educational Officer(FAC)^{Zilla Parishad, Nizamabadhas} addressed a letter to^{the Director of School Education, A'P'} Hyderabad vide his^{Lr.No.E2l629/2008., Dt: 13-10-2008 in} which it has shown the^{amount of arrears eligibleby the} applicants are as^follows:

¶75

Sfl B. Jacob Prem^{Kumar applicant in O.A.No. 2922/2070 Rs' 21408200}

¶76

Sri S. Venkata Swamy^{applicantin O.A.No.I:.€L/2O!O Rs 1,39,351-00}

¶77

Sn P. Muttena applicant^{in O-A.No.2t87l29t1Rs. 1,14,001-O0}

¶78

Sri C. Narsaiah applicant in O.A.l!o. ZLA!2O|O^{Rs. 1,08,479-00}

¶79

Smt. V.Indira applicant in O.A.No.^{21AL/2O7O Rs 1,77,578-00}

_,,1

SN..I

It is to submit that. the Commissioner & Director of School Education, Ap, Hyderabad had Communicated the above information to the Secretary to the Government for School Education, Department, Ap Hyderabad vide Lr. Rc. Nc.355 4/ c.4/ L993. Dr: 19-1 1-2001.

¶84

It is to submit that, all the applicants in O.A.No.21B1/2070 and 2922/2OlO have.represented to the District Educational Officer., Nizamabad for sanction of arrears as per Hon'ble High Court Orders vide Lr.No. Nil Dated: 07-05-2015 and 26-05-2015.

¶85

This is submitted for favour of kind information and necessary Orders to avoid further legal complications in the matter.

¶86

D The relevant Dortion oft he order impuqned, Rc. No.56 LIB2I 2017. dated 29.O t.20L9 issuedbv the - res ondent N o.3 is extracted hereu nder:-

¶87

Consequently the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in WpMp No: 44660 of 20t2in 35152 of 2012 and WpMp No: 44364 of 2Ot2 in 34901 of 2012 have issued orders dated 07.06.2013 & '10.06.2013 respectively as follows.

¶88

ORDER:-

¶89

"In this application, petitioners are seeking suspension of order, dated 05.07.2012 passed by the Ap Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in OA No: 5433 of 2010

¶90

By aforesaid order, the Tribunal following its earlier order, dated 13.04.1993 in R.P No: 7394 of 19BB and batch, allowed the O.A.

¶91

The respondent herein, who retired as SGBT teacher a decade ago, had claimed Selection Grade Scale of pay, by filing aforesaid O.A.

¶92

¶93

SN.^J

¶94

As it is stated by the^{learned Government Pleader} appearing for the^{petitioners hereinthat the scheme for} grant of^-selection Grade^{Scale of Pay was cancelled as} 6arly as in 1992,^{whethersuch claim of the respondent can} be allowed at this^{point of time or not, is a matter, which} requires consideration^{as the same will have effecton} similarly^placed Persons.

¶95

For the aforesaid reason^{s, thetmuqned order sha ll rema in} susoended ti ll disoosal^{of the WritPetition}

¶96

Therefore the consideration^{of the cases-shall ultimately} tinkers with the^{ordersof the Hon'ble High Court in the} matter and also^{runs contraryto the litigationpending in} the matter as the^{Hon'ble High Court alreadysuspended} the orders of the^{Hon'bleTribunalon 07'06'2013and} 10.06.2013 which^{are pending before the Hon'bleHigh} Court at^{present.Moreover,the O.As referredin the Hon} ble Tribunal orders^{werealso subjectmatterof the Hon'ble} High Court of Andhra^Pradesh.

¶97

In pursuance of^{the above orders of the Hon'bleHigh} Court, Hyderabad,^{the applicants are hereby informedthat} the request for^{Selection Grade Scale will be examined if} necessary, after the^{disposal of the pending} <sup>WPs in the matter.

¶98

DISCUSSION^{ANDcoNc LUSION:-}

¶99

Learned counsel^{appearing onbehalf ofthe} petitioner mainly contends that^{on an earlier occasion'} the petitioner approached^{the APAT, atHyderabadby} filing O.A.No.2922 of^{2O1O and the samewas disposedof} in favour of the^petitioner vide^{order, dated O5.O5.2OtO,} with a clear observation that the^{petitioner in the present}

<br>

SN. J

Writ^petition who is an appticant in O.A.No.2922 of 2O1O is entifled for revision and other retrial benefits as per the proceedings dated 02.o7.1g99 issued by the l"t respondent, as calculated.

¶104

6 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petataoner submits that aggrieved by the said order, dated 05.05.201O passed In O.A.No.2922 of 2OLO, the respondents had filed W.p.Nos. 22506 & 22531 of 201O and the same had been dismissed vide Division Bench judgment of this Cour! dated 26.O3.2O15 and hence, the order, dated O5,O5.2OlO passed in O.A.No .2922 of zOtO had attained its finality.

¶105

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that in pursuance to the dismissat of the Writ Petition Nos. 22506 & 22531 of 2O1O preferred by the respondents herein, the 3.d respondent vide his Lr.No.6661/B.2/2OOg, dated 14.O2.2O17 addressed to the Director of School Education, Hyderabad (referred to and extracted above) submitted a detailed report for sanction of arrears in favour of the petitioner as per the orders of

lt f,

SN.^J

ln dated^{16.O4.2010 Passed} APAT,^HYderabad,

¶110

O.A.No.2181 /2OLO'

¶111

Learned^{counsel appearing on behalf of the} petitioner^{submits that in spite of clear recommendations} of the 3'd^{respondentissuedin favour of the petitioner'} dated^{14.02 .2Ot7 addressedto the 2nd respondent'no} steps^{had been taken by the respondents as on date to} comply^{with the orders obtained by the petitioner' dated} O5.O5.2010^{in O'A'No'2922ot 2O1O which had attained} finality with^{the Division Bench judgmentof this Court} vide its^{order, dated25'O3'2015 passedin writ Petition} Nos. 22506^{&2253t of 2O1O and therefore' the Writ} t Petition^{should be allowedas prayed for'}

¶112

the orders 9. This^{Court opinesthat without Considering} obtained^{by the petitionerin favour of the} petitioner, impugned^{order, dated 29'O1'2019 had been} passed bY the 3'd^{respondentstating that the request for Selection} Grade Scale^{would be examinedifnecessary after the} disposal of^{the pending writ petition in the matter'}

¶113

¶114

SN, J

¶115

This Court opines that the pendency of the Writ Petition referred to in the order impugned, dated 29.O1.2O19 in Lr.No.666t/P.2/2OLt has no relevance to the facts of the present case, in view of the fact as borne on record that the petitioner obtained relief way back on 05.05.2010 in O.A.No.2922 ot 2O1O which had been confirmed by the Division Bench judgment of this Cotrrt vide its order, dated 26.03.201S passed in Writ petition Nos. 225O6 & 22531 of 2O1O preferred by the respondent herein aggrieved by the order, dated 05.05.2O1O passed in O.A.No.2922 of 2O1O and therefore, denying the relief granted to the petitioner in the said orders tantamounts to not only delaying the matter but denying tqe justice to the petitioner depriving the petitioner of petitioner,s legitimate rights.

¶116

Takinq into onsid ra to

¶117

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government pleader for Services_f appearing on behalf of the respondents.

SN.^J

c) The^{orderof Andhra Pradesh AdministrativeTribunal} at Hyderabad,^{datedO5'05'2O1O passed in O'A'No'2922 ot} 2010 in^{favour of the petitioner (referred to and extracted} above)

¶123

Bench^{judgment of this Court' dated} d) The Division ln W.P.Nos.225O6^{& 2253L of 2O1O} 25.03.2015 Passed (referred^{to and extracted above)}

¶124

The contents^{of the recommendation in favourof the} e) Lr. No.666¹ /^{82 I 2OO8, dated} petitioner^vide Proceedings respondent^{No'3 tothe} L4.O2.2OL7^{issued bY the} respondent^{No'2 (referred to and extracted above)}

¶125

of the^{order imPugnedvide} f) The contents dated^{29.O1.2019 issued bY the} Rc.No.6661/^82l2Ot7, respondent^{No'3 (referredto and extractedabove)} tn rejecting^{the request of the petitionerfor SelectionGrade} Scale on^{the ground of pendencyof other writ petitionsin} aroutihe,casualmannerwithoutapplicationofmind.

¶126

This Court^{opines that the order impugned} Rc.No.6661/^{FJz/2AL7, dated 29'O1'2019passed by the 3'd}

¶127

14,

¶128

SN, J

¶129

respondent and intimated to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings, dated LO.O4.2O:rg, 16.04.2019 and Og.O6.2O2O hacl been passed mechanically without assigning any reasons, withorrt application of mind, without perusing the materia! on record, without taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner obtained faourable orders in O.A.No.2922 of 2O1O, dated O5.O5.2O1O which had been confirmed vide order of the Division Bench judgment of this court, dated 26.03.2015 passed in W.p.Nos.22506 & 22531 of 2OlO and that the same had attained finality, since the respondents had not challenged the said orders before Apex Court as on date and also there is a clear recommendation as borne on 114.0 record in favour of the petitioner, clated 2.z[-t7 issued by the 3rd respondent addressed to the 2nd respondent herein and therefore, this Court opines that the petitioner is entifled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the piesent Writ petition. Accordingly, the orders impugned are dectared as iltegal, i.e., dated 29.O1.2OL9 issued by the 3rd respondent, and dated LO.O4.2OL9, 16.04.2019 & 08.06.2020 issued by the

SN,^J

(^f

2nd respondent^{and the respondents are directed} to reconsider^{the request of the petitioner for grant} of Selection^{Grade Scale along with arrears' duly taking} 'nto consideration^{the order, dated O5'O5'201Opassed in} O.A.No.2922^{of 2O1O, the Division Bench iudgment of this} Court, dated^{26'03'2015 passed in W'P'Nos'225O6&} 2253tof^{201O and the clear recommendation' in favour of} the^{petitioner vide proceedings Lr'No'666tlB2l2OO8'} datedl4.o2.2olTissuedbytherespondentNo.3tothe respondentNo.2withinaperiodoffour(04)weeksfrom the date^{of receipt of the copy of the order' in accordance} to law,^{in conformitywith principles of natural justice and} reasoned^{orders Pertaining to the} pass aPProPriate I request^{of the petitionerto grant Selection GradeScale} along^{witharrears asrecommended by the3rd} respondentthroughLetter.666lls2lzoos,dated L4.O2.2OL7^{and duly communicatethe decision to the} petitioner.

¶135

L2. Accordingly,^{the Writ Petition is allowed'However'} there shall^{be no orderas to costs'}

SN. J

Miscella neous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶140

Petition, shall stand closed.

¶141

¶142

SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

A./

SECTION OFFICER

1 Education Department, secretariat,
a Illil,ffi [ii#iiii?r?Ei?li
r!13"?53:ft of school Edication, Government of reransana, Nampaly,
3 The District Educational Of
4
ff itsJ;.sst?,j#Bbffi sd;r{iE$,',.dfl"yti::,:::,":"::;:;
6 Two CD Copies
PSK.
O..
T

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:09 t07t2025

ORDER

WP.No.21BZi of 2021

c il? t-
a
rt
Ni
.)--),...) q Stq
-i': 'l;'
':',.)..-::''
+
r?, FIA,

¶154

ALLOWTNG THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶155

B.Jacob Prem Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Jacob Prem Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms. Maloth Sonali Vs State of Telangana

Jajjara Lingaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Chakali Narayana Vs The State of Telangana

T. Sampath, Vs The State of Telangana

Kalyani Kumari Vs The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.

K. Gangadar Vs The Presiding Officer , Labour Court-Ii and another