T. Satyanarayana Chary Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

T. Satyanarayana Chary Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.11.2025 and pass appropriate orders strictly in terms of B. Srinivasulu v. Nellore Municipal Corporation (Apex Court decision dated 17.08.2015) and the Division Bench common order in W.P.No.33936 of 2011 and batch (dated 02.05.2018), as confirmed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.13813 of 2018 and batch (dated 23.07.2024), as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight (08) weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, and to communicate the decision to the petitioner; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' inaction in not regularizing the petitioner's services with effect from the date of completion of 10 years of part-time service as on the cutoff date prescribed in G.O.Ms. No.112 dated 23.09.1997 is void, illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

In view of the submission that the matter is covered by W.P.No.32519 of 2025 dated 28.10.2025, and following that order and in terms thereof, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.11.2025 and pass appropriate orders strictly in terms of the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in B. Srinivasulu v. Nellore Municipal Corporation and others (dated 17.08.2015) and the common order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.33936 of 2011 and batch (dated 02.05.2018) as confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.13813 of 2018 and batch (dated 23.07.2024), as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (08) weeks from receipt of a copy of the order, and to communicate a copy of the decision to the petitioner.

Key takeaways

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed; there shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 by a retired Office Sub-ordinate (aged about 65) seeking regularization of his services with effect from the date of completion of 10 years of part-time service as on the cutoff date prescribed in G.O.Ms. No.112 dated 23.09.1997, and consequential pensionary benefits. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subject matter was squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P.No.32519 of 2025 dated 28.10.2025; the submission was not seriously disputed by the respondents. Following that order and in terms thereof, Pulla Karthik, J. (taking up the matter at the admission stage with consent), disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.11.2025 and pass appropriate orders strictly in terms of the Supreme Court decision in B. Srinivasulu v. Nellore Municipal Corporation (dated 17.08.2015) and the Division Bench common order in W.P.No.33936 of 2011 and batch (dated 02.05.2018), as confirmed by the Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.13813 of 2018 and batch (dated 23.07.2024), preferably within eight weeks, and to communicate the decision to the petitioner. Miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs.

[³³⁰¹ ]

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO (Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

WRIT PETITION NO: 36441 OF 2O2s

Between:

T- Satyanarayana Chary, S/o. Late Narasimha Chari, Aged about 65 years, Retd. Office subordinate, R/o H.No.1-98, Veeravalli Village, Aler Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District.

...PETITIONER

AND

1 The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2 The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

The Commissioner of Panchayat, State of Telangana, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad.

The Chief Executive Officer, Yadadri Bhongir District.

The Mandal Parishad Devolopment Officer, Aler Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District.

The Sub-Treaury Officer, State Audit, Aler, Aler Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District.

The Sub-Treaury Officer, State Audit, Aler, Aler Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District.

...RESPONDENTS

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 a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner with effect from the date of completion of^{'10 years} of Part{ime services as on the cutoff date prescribed in G.O.Ms. No.112 dated 23.09.1997, as void, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently^{direct the}

respondents to consider the representation dated 14.11.2A2 r for regularization of the services of the petitioner with effect from the date of co.t^pletion of 10^years of service from the date of his initial appointment for the^purpr,: e of pension in terms of Law laid down by the Hbnble Supreme Court in the car:, of B.Srinivasulu Vs. Nellore Municipal Corporation and also the common orde. r r;sed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in WP No.33936 of 20'1 1 and b: oh dated 02.05.2018 as conf irmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP IJ^,s;.1 3813/201 8 dated 23.07.2024 and further direct the respondents to fix ar: :ay the oensionary benefits the date of completion of 10 years of Part{im : :;ervices along with arrears

lA NO: 1 OF 202s

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c r ) imstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cor^r may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the representation c r ted 1 4. 1 1 .2025 tor regularization of the services of the petitioner with eff : I from the date of completion of 10 years of service from the date of his in,t e appointment for the purpose of pension in terms of Law laid down by the Hor t k: Supreme Court in the case of B Srinivasulu Vs. Nellore Municipal Corporation rrd also the common order passed by the Division Bench of this Honble Court in \ /l) No.33936 of 201 1 and batch dated 02.05.2018 as confirmed by the Honble ll preme Court in SLP Nos..13813/2018 daled 23.07 .2024 .

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S.JAGADISH

Counsel for the Respondents No.l&3 : GP FOR SERVICEI; ll

Counsel for the Respondents No.2,6&7: GP FOR SERVICt:: lll

Counsel for Respondents No.4&5:SRl K.PRADEEP REDD'/ SC FOR GP,MP,ZP The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT TTYDERABAD

THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

I[IRIT PETITION No.36441 of 2025

THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FTVE

Between:

T. Satyanarayana Chary

Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others

Respondents

ORDER:

The Writ Petition is fiied aggrieved by the action of the 1n AS respondents not regularizing the services of the petitioner arbitrary and illegal

Heard Sri S.Jagadish, iearned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services II for respondent Nos.1 and 3, learned Government Pleader for Services-Ill for respondent Nos.2

I

2

and 6 and Sri^K.Pradeep Reddy, Iearned Star ling Counsel for respondent Nos.4 ancl 5. With their consent, t.i- c Writ Petition rs taken up lor disposal at the admission stage itself

3 . Today, rvhen the matter is taken up for h,: L:ing, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that the subject r Liltter of this writ petition is squarely covered by the orders passec by this Court in W.P.No.32519 ol 2025 dated 28.lO.2025 and reqrr :sted the Court to pass similar order in this writ petition aiso. The r a-id submission is not seriousiy disputed by the learned counsel rppearing for the respondents

t+,^{lnview of the above and followingth e order passedin} W.P.No.32519 of 2025 dated 28.1O.2025 and in t:rms thereof, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to .l r: respondents to considcr thc representation of the petitioner dat,r I 74.11.2025 and pass appropriate orders, strictly in terms of Hc rr'ble Apex Court decision in B.Srinivasulu v. Nellore Municipal Corporation and othersl datecl 17.8.20 15 and the common or<1, r' passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.33936 r> 201 1 and batch dated 2.5.2018 as conhrmed by the Hon'ble i:preme Court in

'Civil nppeal N0.6318 of 2025

F.Y

S.L.P.No.13B13 of 2018 and batch dated 23.7.2024, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (B) weeks thereof from lhe date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate a copy of the same to the petitioner. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

shall stand closed. There sha1l be no order as to costs.

SD/. K.BHAVANI SWAMY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Telangana State, Hyderabad.

The Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat, Telangana State, Hyderabad.

The Commissioner of Panchayat, State of Telangana, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad.

The Chief Executive Officer, Yadadri Bhongir District.

The Mandal Parishad Devolopment Offlcer, Aler Mandal, Yadadri^Bhongir District.

The Sub-Treaury Officer, State Audit, Aler, AIer lvlandal, Yadadri^Bhongir District.

The Sub-Treaury Officer, State Audit, Aler, Aler Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District.

One CC to SRI S.JAGADISH, Advocate. [OPUC]

Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES lll, High Court for the State of^Telangana. tourl

10.Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES ll, High Court for the State of^Telangana. tourl

11.One CC to SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR ZPP,MP,^GPP. [OPUC]

Two CD Copies.

(Along with a copy of the Order, daled 28-10-2025 in W.P.No.32519 of 2025 to this Order)

BSK

BM

R{-

re&

HIGH COURT

DATED:0311212025

ORDER

WP.No.36441 of 2025

--:.'. '
,'2"- '' t a
ll3 n ?
.. +
\' '\ , ^.f,r. - ,h
rc
_'j---

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

,,>
coq
,f,
tr

THD HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTI{IK

WRIT PETITION No.32519 OF 2025

ORDER:

With the consent of the parties, this Writ Petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, seeking the following reliel

'... i-s-sue a Wit, Order or dtrection more in the nature of Wit oJ Mandamus declaing the inaction of the respondenls irt snot regularizirtg the seruices of the petitioner wtth elfect from the dote of completion of lO gears of Part time seruices as on the cutoff date prescibed n G.O.Ms. No.112 dqted 23.07.1997, as uoid, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to regulaize the seruices of the petitioner uth elfect Jrom the date of completion of 1O gears of seruice from the date of his initial appointment Jor the purpose of pension in terms of Inut laid dotun by the Honble Supreme Courl [n the case of B. Sintuasulu Vs. Nellore Muntcipal Corporation and^qlso the common order passed bg the Diuision Bench of this Hon'ble Court in WP No.33936 of 2O1 1 and batch doted 02.O5.2O18 as confinned bg the Hon'ble Supreme CourT in SLP Nos.13813/2018 dated 23.07.2024 and batch and further direct the respondcnts to ftx and poA the pensonary benefits the date of completion of 10 gears of Patl-lime serutces along u.rith arrcqrs^qnd Poss.^{-. "}

Heard Sri S. Jagadish, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-Il appearing for respondent Nos.l to 4, Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and learned Government Pleader for Services III appearing for respondent No.6.

4, Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Part-time Sweeper on 29.10.1979 in the

PK..I wp J.l5l!l 2(r2r

2

Panthangi Gram Panchayat, Choutuppal Ivl r rCal and had completed 14 years of service as prescribed il 3.O.Ms.No.l12 dated 23.O7 .1997 . Therefore the petitioner^,r is eligible and qualifred for rcgularization of his services as per (l.O.Ms.lrlo.1l2 dated 23.O7.1997. llowever respondent No_ 1 issued G.O.Ms-No.382 dated 14.08.2OI3 regularizing the services of the petitioner along with Part time employees working r. various Gram Panchayats in Nalgonda District as per G.O.I/ ;.No.112 dated 23.O7.1997 in the sanclioned posts of Sweeper in .^,:rnthangi Gram Panchayat, Choutuppal Mandal, in pursuancc to the same, respondent No.4 issued regularization orders rn 04.09.2013 regularizing the sen'ices of the petitioner as Su,eeper. Subsequently, the petitioner retired from his serir.r on 31.O8.2023 while working as Office Sub-ordinate.

lt is further submttted that as per the decisi I I of the Hon,ble Supreme Cor-rrt of lndia in B. Sriniucsulu Vs. Nr I tore Municipal Corporation and. othersl, the NMR'S/Part-time , rnployees, who have completed 5/ I0 years of service are entitled tc - regularization of their services from the date of completion o^' :i/ 10 years of service as NMR/Part time employees and the s:r:r: decision was also reported in Division Bench of this Court in ',r . p.No.33936 of 2011 and batch dated 02.05.2018. Therefore, I arned counsel

1 Civil Appeal No 63 18 of 2025

I'K..J Wp 32519 2O2s

3

seeks permission of this^{Court to make a representationto the} respondents seeking^{retrospectiveregularizationin termsof orders} passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in B' Sriniuq.sulu^{Vs- Nellore} Municipal Corporation and others dated^{17.08.2015andthe} common order passed by the Division^{Benchof this Courtin} W.P.No.33936 of 20l I and batch dated^{O2.05.2O18as confirmed} by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP^{No. i3813 of 2O 18 and batch} dated 23.07 .2024 and further^prays this^{Court to direct the} respondents to consider the representation^{and pass appropriate} orders, within a stipulated^period of^tlme.

Learned Government Pleader for^Services -^{IIand III} appearing for the respondent Nos'l to 4^{ar:d 6 submitsthat, on} receipt of a copy of the^{representation,the respondentswill} consider the same and^pass appropriate^{orders, in accordancewith} law.

7 . Having regard to the submissions^made by^{the learned} counsel for the respective parties and^{without expressing any} opinion on merits, this Writ Petition^{is disposed of with a direction} to the petitioner to submit a representation^{in order to redressthe} his grievance within a^period of ten^{(lO) days from the date of} receipt of a copy of the order^{and on receipt of such representation,} the respondents are directed to^{consider the same and pass}

PK,J U't) .125 l(l 2025

4

appropriate orders, strictly in terms of Hon'ble Ape.< Oourt decision in B. Sriniucsulu Vs. Nellore Municipal Cor toro.tion and others dated 1 7.08.20 i 5 and the common order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.33936 o{ 2 )11 and batch dated 02.05.2O18 as confirmed bv the Hon'ble Sr 1 reme Court in SLP No. 138 13 of 20 l8 and batch dated^'.1 \ 07 .2024, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a peric 1 of eight (08) weeks thereof from the clate of receipt of a copy o this order and communicate a copy of the same to the petitioner.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shz,1 stand closed. There shall bc no order as to costs.

PULLA^(ARTHIK, J

Date: 28.1O.2025 SRK