I N THE HI GH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WRI T PETI TI ON No.24641 OF 2022 Between Sri K. Narsimlu … Petitioner And The State of Telangana & 4 Others … Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 18.07.2025 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.24641 OF 2022 % 18.07.2025 Between:

# K. Narsimhulu … Petitioner And $ The State of Telangana & Others … Respondents Gist:

> Head Note:

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Ch.Ganesh ^ Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Services-I ^ Counsel for Respondent No.4: Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned standing counsel ? Cases Referred:

(i) (2020) 1 SCC (L&S)

(ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2025 I NSC 144 (iv) 2024 Law Suit(SC) 1209 (v) (2017) 1 SCC 148 (vi) 2010(9) SCC 247 (vii) (2013) 14SCC 65 (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC 1797 (ix) (2015) 8 SCC 265 (x) (2014) 7 SCC 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AI R 2020 Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 SCC 1 ((xiv) 2025 SCC ONLI NE SC 1735 (xv) (2019) 10 SCC 542 (xvi)Review Petition (C) No.9 of 2018, dated

16.01.2018 (xvii) (2001) 10 SCC 473 (xviii) Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.

1109/ 2022, dated 18.02.2022 HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.24641 OF 2022

ORDER:

Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Rural Development, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 and Sri.G.Narender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TG ZPP MPP GPPS, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

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

“…to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the name of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not treating the services of petitioner as regular one in last grade post for working from 39 long years on full time even not paying legitimate wages of Full Time Sweeper, As per appointment dated 14/02/1983, as unjust, unfair, totally arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 16, 21, 39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of our Constitution in denying legitimate living wages to petitioner by not implementing Section 13 and 15 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and provisions of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and Govt. Orders from time to time, to pay living wages to petitioner and prays to direct the Respondents herein to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in last grade post from the date of initial appointment of 14-02-1983 by applying the decision and principle laid by the Honorable Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs State of U.P. (2019 (1) SCC 516) and Division Bench of this Honorable Court in WP No. 33936 of 2011 and Batch Cases dated 02/ 05/ 2018 (2020 (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) followed by decision of the Honorable High Court of A.P. in W.A.No. 483 of 2021 dated 05/ 08/ 2021 based on principle laid by the Honorable Supreme Court in C.A. No. 1254 of 2018 Apex Court, dated 23/ 03/ 2018 to reckon contingent services of petitioner for computation of qualifying service to grant of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits by releasing consequential monetary benefits in the last grade post including periodical increments, as revised from time to time with 100 percent compensation as per principle laid by Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Avtar Chand in C.A.No. 3416 - 3445 of 2010 and Batch Cases dated 19- 02-2019 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by applying the aforesaid principles and decisions of the Honorable Apex Court