I N THE HI GH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

WRI T PETI TI ON No.13699 of 2021

Between:

Sri B.Mohan … Petitioner

And

The State of Telangana & Others

… Respondents

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 07.07.2025

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 : Yes

marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes.

see the fair copy of the Judgment?

________________________________

MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA

I N THE HI GH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WRI T PETI TI ON No.13699 OF 2021 % 07.07.2025 Between:

# Sri B.Mohan … Petitioner And $ The State of Telangana & Others … Respondents Gist:

> Head Note:

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Ch.Ganesh ^ Counsel for Respondents: AGP for Services-I ? Cases Referred: (i) 2025 I NSC 144 (ii) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1209 (iii)(2017) 1 SCC 148 (iv)2010(9) SCC 247 (v)(2013) 14SCC 65 (vi)2015 SCC Online SC 1797 (vii) (2015) 8 SCC 265 (viii) (2014) 7 SCC 223 (ix) SLP No.32847 of 2024 HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.13699 OF 2021

ORDER:

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

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

“…to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka & others Vs Umadevi, vide impugned Proc. Rc. No. 33-B2/2019 dt 05/08/2019, on the ground that the petitioner is working not more than two hours in a day, contrary to their own correspondence of the respondents as highly illegal, unconstitutional against the principles of natural justice and prays to direct the respondents herein to set aside the impugned Proc. Rc.No. 33-B2/2019, dated 05.08.2019, with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka & others Vs Umadevi and by following the latest Division Bench Orders of this Hon’ble Court in WP.No.23057 of 2019, dt 21/04/2020 by reviewing the speaking order, dt 05/08/2019 and pass…”

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present Writ Petition is as under:-

The petitioner was initially appointed on 13.10.2003 as a contingent worker in the Zilla GrandhalayaSamstha and was assigned duties in the Book Deposit Centers. Though designated as a part-time employee, the petitioner has been discharging full-time duties from the date of appointment and has rendered continuous service for 17 years. The petitioner initially received a consolidated pay of Rs.150/-, which was later enhanced to Rs.600/- per month, despite performing duties on par with regular employees without being accorded regular status or service benefits.

It is specific case of the petitioner that despite multiple representations and recommendations made by the Director of Public Libraries such as Rc. No. 121-B2/1986 dated 05.09.1986 and Rc. No. 88-B3/2008 dated 30.12.2008 acknowledging the full-time nature of duties performed by part-time employees and recommending their regularization, no action was taken in the petitioner’s case. Further, official communications including Rc. No. 118-A2/2012 dated 24.04.2012, and letters dated 03.10.2007 and 25.11.1993, clearly endorsed regularization of such employees who had completed 5 to 10 years of continuous service.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further relies on the decision in O.A. No. 1438 of 2006, dated 11.02.2010, the A.P. Administrative Tribunal directed the payment of minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, to similarly situated employees.