IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WRIT PETITION No.28247 OF 2023 Between:

Sri Kola Ravinder & Others … Petitioners And The State of Telangana & Others … Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 30.06.2025 THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE 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. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WRIT PETITION No.28247 OF 2023 % 30.06.2025 Between:

# Sri Kola Ravinder & Other … Petitioners And $ The State of Telangana & Others … Respondents Gist:

> Head Note:

! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri K.Amrith Raj ^ Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Endowments ^ Counsel for Respondent No.3: Sri Ch.Satish Kumar, learned standing counsel ? Cases Referred:

(i) 2025 INSC 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 (x) AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3969 (xi) (2006) 4 SCC 1 (xii)2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1735 (xiii)2021 (6) ALD 285 (SC)

(xiv) The judgment of the Apex Court, dated

17.10.2014 in Civil Appeal No.9849 of 2014 HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.28247 OF 2023

ORDER:

Heard Sri K.Amrith Raj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Ch.Satish, learned Standing Counsel for Endowments appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3.

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

“….to issue a writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not implementing G.O.Rt.No.121 Revenue (Endowment-1)Department, dated 09.03.2018, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, void and consequently, to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners with reference to their length of service and seniority in the light of the provisions contained in G.O.Rt.No.121 dated 09.03.2018 and grant the arrears of pay attached to the posts held by the petitioners including the annual grade increments as and when fell due from time to time in accordance to G.O.Rt.No.577 dated 15.09.2017 and to pass.”

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners were appointed as daily wage workers (cooks and laddu makers) in Sri Anjaneya Swami Devasthanam, Kondagattu, during the years 2003, 2005, and 2008. After the temple was taken over by the Endowments Department in 2008, the petitioners continued their uninterrupted service. Despite receiving salary enhancements and EPF deductions, the petitioners repeated requests for regularization since 2012 were ignored. Though eligible under G.O.Rt.No.121 Revenue (Endowment-1)Department, dated 09.03.2018 and G.O.Rt.No.577 dated 15.09.2017, the petitioners were denied the benefits extended to similarly placed employees in other temples. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD:

A) This Court, vide its order dated 28.03.2024, passed interim orders in favour of the petitioner observing as under:

“Learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to file counter.

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be interim direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to pay minimum pay scale to the petitioners on par with the regularly engaged employees, discharging similar duties, until further orders.

Post on 05.06.2024 for counter.”

B) The averments made in the additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 in the present writ petition and in particular, paragraph No.4 is extracted hereunder:

4.