The Project Officer Vs P Sudhakar Babu

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Lefters Patent^prefened against the^{Order dated} 19-12-2025 in l.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.2B413 of 2022 on the file of the^High Court.

¶10

Between:

¶11

1 The Project Ofiicer, ITDA Bhadrachalam Bhadradri Kothagudem^District.

¶12

2 The Dy DirectorTribal Welfare, ITDA Bhadrachalam.

¶13

3 The District Collector, Bhadradri Kothagudem Telangana.

¶14

4 The Dy Director, Tribal Welfare ITDA Bhadrachalam.

¶15

.....APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 5 tO 7

¶16

ANO

¶17

P Sudhakar Babu, S/o Prabhudas, Aged 38^years Working as Lecturers^O/o Colleec ofTeacher Education TW Bhadrachalam Bhadradri^Kothegudem District T.S.

¶18

G. Suresh, S/o Narasaiah Aged 44^years Working as Lecturers^{O/o College of} Teacher Education TW Bharjrachalam BhadrdriKothagudem^{DistrictT S}

¶19

K. Nagqswar Rao,-S/o Guravaiah Aged 45^years Working^{aq Lecturers O/o} College of Teacher Education TW Bhadrachalam BhadrdriKothagudem District T S

¶20

L. Mary Rani, D/o Raju Aged 35^years Working as Lecturers Q{o^{Col!.eg^e of} Teachi:r Education TW Bhadrachalam BhadrdriKothagudem^{DistrictT S}

¶21

B. Nageswar Rao, S/o Bojji Aged 42^years Working as Lecturers^{O/o College} of Teacher Education TWBhadrachalam BhadrdriKothagudem^{District T S}

¶22

K. Baby, D/o Sree Ramulu Aged 35 years All are Working as Lecturers O/o College of Teacher Education T W Bhadrachalam Bhadrdri Kothagudem District T.S.

¶23

ffi

¶24

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Department of School Educat'on Hyderabad Telangana.

¶25

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Finance Telangana Secreteuiat Hyderabad Telangana.

¶26

The Sterte of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Tribal Welfare Departrnent Telangana Secretariat Hyderabad Telangana.

¶27

10.The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, DSSK Bhawan Masabtank Hyderabad Telangana.

¶28

.....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDNETS 1 to 4

¶29

!.A.NO:2 OF 2026

¶30

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fil,-.d in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. l to 6 not to press C.C.No.959 of 2025 before the Learned Single Judge.

¶31

Counsel for Appellants : ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶32

Counsel for Respondents : SRI P.V.RAMANA

¶33

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Lefters Patent prefened against the Order dated O1-O4-2O25, in W.P.No.28413 of 2022. on the file of the High Court.

¶34

The Project Officer, ITDA Bhadrachalain Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

¶35

The Dy Director, Tribal Welfare TDA Bhadrachalam.

¶36

The District Collector, Bhadradri Kothagudem Telangana.

¶37

DENTS 5 to 7

¶38

D

¶39

1 . P. Sudhakar Babu, S/o. Prabhudas Aged 38 years Wort<ing as Lecturers, O/o Collegetf Teacher Education TW Bhadrachalam Bhadrdri Kothagudem District T S

¶40

G Suresh, S/o Narasaiah Aged 44 years Working as Lecturers 0/0 College of Teacher Education TW Bhadracha lam BhadrdriKothagudem District T S

¶41

K Nageswar Rao, S/o Guravaiah^{Aged 45 y,eqrs} [grkilq 39 lgcturgrs^o/o Collele of Teacher Education TW^{Bhadrachalam BhadrdriKothagudem} District T S

¶42

L Mary Rani, D/o Raju Aged 35^years Wgrki.ng 99 !.ecturgrs^{O/o College of} Teacher Education TVt/ Ehadrachdam^{BhadrdriKothagudemDistrictT S}

¶43

B Nageswar Rao, S/o BojjiAged^{2years_Working-as Lecturers 0/o College} of Telcher Education Tfru-efiadrachalam^{BhadrdriKothagudemDistrictT S}

¶44

K Baby, D/o Sree Ramulu Aged^{35 years All ar.. Working qs..legturersO/o} College of Teacher Education^{TWA'B had rachalam Bhadrd riKothagudem} District T S

¶45

....RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS

¶46

l. The State of Telangana, Rep^{by its Principal Secretary Department of School} Education Hyderabad Telangana.

¶47

The State of Telangana,^{Rep by its Principal SecretaryFinanceTelangana} Secretariat Hyderabad Telangana.

¶48

The State of Telangana, Rep^{by its Principal Secretary TribalWelfare} Department Telangana Secretariat^{Hyderabad Telangana.}

¶49

10.The Commissioner of Tribal^{Welfare, DSSK Bhawan Masabtank Hyderabad} Telangana.

¶50

.....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS^{1 to 4}

¶51

|.A.NO:3 OF 2026

¶52

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 Respondent Nos.1 to 6 not to^{press C.C.No.959 of 2O25 before the Learned} Single Judge.

¶53

Counsel for Appellant : ADDL ADVOCATE^GENERAL

¶54

Counsel for Respondents : SRI^{P.V.RAMANA RAO}

¶55

The Court made the following COMMON^{JUDGMENT : -}

¶56

IN THf, HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶57

TItE HO N'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARE SH KUMAR SINGH AND

¶58

TIIE HON'BLE SRI JUST ICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

¶59

WRIT APPEAL Nos.87 and 9l of 2026

Dated: 09.02.2026

W.A.No.87 of 2026

Betwr:cn:

The ['ro.jcct OIficer. I'IDA Bhadrachalarn, []lradradri Kothagudem District, and 2 others.

¶64

.,.Appellants

¶65

and P.Sudhakar []abu, and 9 others.

¶66

...Respondents

¶67

I I

¶68

W.A.lt{o.91 of 2026 Betu,r:en: 'I'he P:'oject Otlicer, ITDA Bhadrachalam, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, and 2 others.

,..Appellants

and

2

P.Sudhakar Babu,

and 9 others.

...Respondents

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learned Special Govetnment^{Pleader attached} to the office of learned Additional Advocate General,^{appears for the} appellants

¶77

Learned counsel Sri P.V.Ramana appears for^respondents No.l to 6

¶78

tsoth the writ appeals arise out of interim orders^{dated 19.12.2025} arrd 01.04.2025 passed by the learned writ court in^{W.P.No.284l3 of} 2022

¶79

By the irnpugned order dated 01.04.2025, the^{earlierinterirn} order dated 24.01.2024 was made absolute. By^the interim^{order dated} 19.12.2025, the recall petition filed by the State^{was rejected.}

¶80

On merits, it has been contended by the^{appellants that} respondents No.l to 6, who are writ petitioners, will not^{be entitledto} the minimum tirne scale of pay payable to regularly appointed^lecturers in Government D.Ed colleges, as their appointment was on the basis^{of a} scheme.

\

)

t I

On the part of respondents No.l to 6 the aforesaid contention is refute'J

¶85

The writ petition is pending. It is also pointed out that the learneC writ court has agreed to hear it on priority basis. A contempt petition is also pending betbre the learned writ court.

¶86

I \

¶87

[n the aforesaid circumstances. we are of the considered view that the interests of both the parties rvould be better served if the main writ petition is disposed ot'at an carlv da1e. We request the learned writ court to entertain the request ftrr early hearing of the writ petition made by the part"ies. The parties rvould cooperate in the hearing of the main writ pe tition.

¶88

We are not inclined to intert'ere in the impugned interim orders, as app;lrently from the date of the first interim order dated 24.01.2024 passed in the background of facts and circumstances available then, there hns been no change in circurnstance in the interregnum.

¶89