None identified. The provided case law listing does not contain explicit indications that the case has been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law. The mention of the Supreme Court judgment in Umadevi and references to government departments suggest ongoing legal discussions but do not specify negative treatment.
Followed/Supported:
The mention of the Supreme Court judgment in Umadevi indicates that this case is being referenced as a relevant authority or precedent. Since no language suggests it has been criticized or overruled, it is likely being treated as good law or as a supporting authority.
Uncertain/Unclear Treatment:
The case involving Reddy learned Standing Counsel and the Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, along with references to departmental communications (No.16 Finance Department dated 26.02.2016) and the Supreme Court judgment in Umadevi, lacks explicit treatment indicators. Without specific language indicating whether this case was followed, distinguished, or criticized in subsequent judgments, its judicial treatment remains unclear.
The sole case law listed Dr.Chinni Srinivas Reddy vs State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 9377 does not specify how it has been treated in subsequent jurisprudence. The absence of treatment indicators such as "overruled," "distinguished," or "criticized" makes it uncertain how this case is regarded in current legal standing.
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA
Chinni Srinivas Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
Heard Sri Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Malipeddi Srinivas Reddy learned Standing Counsel for Osmania University.
2. The petitioners initially approached the Court seeking prayer as under:
“….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ:
(i) Declare that the Petitioners are entitled for regularization as per Section 10 A of Act 1994 and G.O. Ms. No. 16, Finance (HRM.I) Department, dated 26-2-2016 and Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umadevi Vs. State of Karnataka (2006 (4) SCC 1) in terms of the proposal sent by the 2nd and 3rd Respondent dated: 06.08.2019 and 28.05.2019 respectively;
(ii) Declare the letter No. 3749/UE/A1/2017, dated 2- 11-2022 issued by the 1st Respondent as illegal, ar
Long-serving employees in essential roles are entitled to regularization, emphasizing fair employment practices and adherence to legal principles.
The court emphasized that long-serving employees misclassified as part-time should be considered for regularization under applicable government orders, ensuring adherence to principles of natural jus....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article