ORDER :

SUREPALLI NANDA, J.

Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I I appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioners approached this Court seeking the prayer as under:

“….to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the indecision of the Respondent Department in not taking any steps to count the temporary service rendered by petitioners in officiating position on contract basis against sanctioned posts for working as medical officers from the year 2002 to 2006 on par with regularly engaged Medical Officers of respondent department for all service purposes to sanction pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits as per revised pension rules of 1980, on their attaining age of superannuation as highly illegal, unjust, unfair arbitrary & violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 39(d), 43 & 300-A of the constitution and prays to direct the respondents herein to count the past service rendered by the petitioners on contract basis from the year 2002 to 2006 in the respondent Department to reckon the period for computation of qualifying service from respective date of initial appointment of petitioners on contract basis on Consolidated pay to sanction pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits to the petitioners on attaining their age of superannuation as per the Revised Pension Scheme Rules 1980 with all consequential monetary benefits by applying the judgment rendered in the similarly situated cases in W.P.No.11735 of 2019 dt. 06.02.2023 as per the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Devarakonda Srilakshmi Vs Government of A.P., (2010 2 ALD 165) under Article 141 of our Constitution in the present case treating the petitioner as similar to them not as dissimilar as per the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.6260-6261 of 2021, dt. 26.10.2021, (2021(6)ALD 285(SC) and pass such order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. The case of the petitioners in brief as per the averments made by the petitioners in the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of the present writ petition is as under:

The petitioners approached this Court aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents to count the past service rendered by the petitioners on contract basis from the year 2002 to 2006 in the respondent Department to reckon the period for computation of qualifying service from respective date of initial appointment of petitioners on contract basis on Consolidated pay to sanction pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits to the petitioners on attaining their age of superannuation as per the Revised Pension Scheme Rules 1980 with all consequential monetary benefits by applying the judgment rendered in the similarly situated cases in W.P.No.11735 of 2019 dt. 06.02.2023 as per the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Devarakonda Srilakshmi Vs Government of A.P., (2010 2ALD 165) under Article 141 of our Constitution in the present case treating the petitioner as similar to them not as dissimilar as per the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.6260- 6261 of 2021, dt. 26.10.2021, (2021(6)ALD 285(SC).

4. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the subject issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated 24.11.2022 passed in W.P. No.7343 of 2019 and therefore the petitioners herein are entitled for the same relief as extended to the petitioners in W.P. No.7343 of 2019.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

6. The relevant portion of the order of this Court in W.P. No. 7343 of 2019, dated 24.11.2022 in particular para Nos. 5 to 8 & 10 to 14 are