I N THE HI GH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD W.P. No. 24076 of 2019 Betw een:

K.Saidulu … Petitioner And The Dy.Executive EngineerNSC and others … Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 21.12.2023 THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes _________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA W.P. No. 24076 of 2019 % 21.12.2023 Betw een:

# K.Saidulu ..... Petitioner And $ The Dy.Executive EngineerNSC and others … Respondents < Gist:

> Head Note:

!Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr Shaik Hameed ^ counsel for Respondents: G.P for Irrigation ? Cases Referred:

1. (2009) 12 SCC 40 HON’BLE MRS JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA W.P. No. 24076 of 2019

ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr.

Shaik Hameed and the learned Government Pleader for I rrigation on behalf of the Respondents.

2. Petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under :

“to issue a Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the respondents in disengaging the petitioner from the service from the post of NMR (Lascar) vide impugned Proc.Notice.No.DEE.N’Cherla.F10/2019/274EE dated 25.10.2019 as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the Memo.No.WCE/E3/587/Vol.III, dated 21.02.2009 and also contrary to material available on records and consequently to quash or set aside the impugned order dated 25.10.2019 by declaring that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service till 31.12.2028 with all consequential benefits.”

3. Case of the Petitioner as per the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition is as under :-

a) The Petitioner had been initially appointed as temporary Man Mazdoor on NMR basis from 21.08.1983 to 20.12.1984 at NSC maintenance division under the control of 3^rd Respondent. Thereafter the Petitioner and other NMRs were terminated without giving any notice or opportunity. Aggrieved by the same a voluntary organization President namely Sri Narayana Rao filed W.P.No.97/1988 directly under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble Supreme Court questioning the validity of the termination of the Petitioner and 600 other NMRs by the Respondents and the name of the Petitioner was shown at Sl.No.494 and the writ petition was finally disposed directing the Respondents to take back the Petitioner and 600 other candidates into service and in response to the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Government issued Memo dated 27.01.2005 and in pursuance to the memo dated 12.02.2009 issued by the Chief Engineer directing to take back the petitioner and others into service as NMR, the petitioner joined in service on 06.02.2009 on receipt of memo dated 06.02.2010.

b) Later the petitioner was transferred and posted at the office of the 1^st respondent vide proceedings dated

25.07.2013. While so the 1^st respondent without issuing any prior notice or intimation issued the impugned notice No.DEE:N’Cherla:F10/2019/274EE,dated 25.10.2019 and disengaged the petitioner from daily wage work under a wrong impression that the petitioner had attained age of 60 years by

31.10.2019.

c) It is further the case of the petitioner that as per the Memo dated 21.02.2009. Condition No.6, the petitioner produced age proof certificate dated 18.01.2010 issued by the Civil Surgeon, Area Hospital, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District wherein it was certified the age of the petitioner as 45 years as on the date of said certificate dated 18.01.2010. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to continue till 31.01.2028. Aggrieved by the impugned proceedings dated 25.10.2019 discharging the petitioner from service with effect from 01.11.2019, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.

PERUSED THE RECORD :

4. The order impugned dated 25.10.2019 passed by the 1^st Respondent reads as under:

“ Sr