Allowed

Yaragorla Saidulu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Dec 2025WP/36444/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, on a writ petition and a section 151 CrPC application concerning the inaction of the Directorate regarding a pension representation, disposed of the main petition at the admission stage. The court directed the Director General to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within two months in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 29.7.2025 and pass appropriate orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Yaragorla Saidulu Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ I

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:364'14 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Yaragorla Saidulu, S/o Y.Naraiah, aged about 42^yearc, Occ Assistant District Fire Officer, Nizamabad, r/o Flat No. 201 Vaishanvi Enclave, Ramakrishnagar [/adeenaguda, Hyderabad.

¶9

.,.PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

2 The Director General, Telangana Disaster Response and Fire Services, Hyderabad.

¶13

3 The Regional Fire Officer, Multizone-2, Hyderabad.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more^particularly oneⁱⁿ the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondentⁱⁿ considering and^passing orders on the representation dt.^{21 -8-2020 submtited by ]} the petitioner, in accordance with Law, in compliance of the orders^{passed in} W.P.No. 17889 of 2020 dt. 5-3-2025 inspite of the written representation^{dl. 29-7-} 2025 followed by^personal risits, as being illegal, arbitrary;^unjustand unconstitutional and consequently direct the 2nd respondent^{to extend the benefit} of Old Pension Scheme to the^petitioner

¶16

lA NO: 1 oF 2025

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CpC praying that in the c r ;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 herein to consider and pass appropriate on the representation dt.29-l_2025, pending disposal of the main V/ it petition

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner : SRI K.SHRIKANTH

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR SERVTCES (HOME,

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

¶23

'' . -:\i.;... r- -. j -.;il i

¶24

;.,

¶25

-7

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶28

WRIT PETITION No.36444 of 2025

¶29

THE FIF'TEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER,

¶30

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FTVE

Between:

Yaragorla Saidulu

Petitioner

AND

State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Hme Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and (2) others.

¶36

... Respondents

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

This Writ Petition is hled questioning the action of the respondent No.2 in not considering the representation of the petitioner dated 29.7 .2025 as arbitrary and illegal.

¶39

¶40

Heard Sri K. Shrikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services (Home) appearing for

¶41

¶42

¶43

the respondents. With their consent, the rv:- [ petition 1S being disposed of at the admission stage.

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted a representation to the espondent No.2 on 29.7.2025 for redressal of his grievance, but so . i r, respondent No.2 has not considered the same. Therefore, pqtitiorn r seeks indulgence of this Court to direct the respondent No.I to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 29.., .2025 and pass appropriate orders within a stipulated period of tir re.

¶45

The learned Government pleader appearing jrr the respondents fairly submits that the respondent No.2 r,rll consider the representation of the petitioner dated 2g.l 2O2S arrd pass appropriate orders in accordalce with law.

¶46

Having regard to the submissions made by the respective parties and without going into merits of the matto. , this writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent No.2 t) pass appropriate orders on the representation submitted by 1 re petitioner on 29 .7 .2025, strictly in accordance with law ari expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two monthr from the date of

-1

receipt of a copy of this order.^{Miscellaneouspetitions pending,if}

¶52

any, shall stand closed.^{Thereshallbe no order as to costs}

¶53

SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUW REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1- The Principal Secretary,^{Home Department Secretariat, TelanganaState,} Hyderabad. :

¶58

The Director General,^{Telangana Disaster Response and Fire Services,} Hyderabad.

¶59

The Regional Fire^{Officer, Multizone-2'Hyderabad.}

¶60

One CC to SRI K.SHRIKANTH,^Advocate. [OPUC]

¶61

Two CCs to GP^{FORHOME,High Court for the State of Telangana.[OUT]}

¶62

Two CD CoPies.

BSK

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 511212025

rl :EriD<br>(
,,.',<br>() -t<br>0 l!,ii irrr (-,il
/i
..
t
a,

¶70

ORDER

¶71

WP.No.36444 of 2025

¶72

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶73

rbL

¶74

'::i.:r:!:.',i..:i..

Yaragorla Saidulu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yaragorla Saidulu 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

Thati Rajeshwar Rao, Vs The State of Telangana

K. Naveen Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Azmath Ul Islams Vs The State of Telangana

N Thirumalachary Vs Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited (Tgnpdcl)

Gadeela Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana

Gaddam Adi Narayana Vs State of Telangana