I N THE HI GH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WRI T PETI TI ON No.14723 OF 2023 Between:

R. Bal Reddy … Petitioner And The State of Telangana & Others … Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 12.06.2025 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.14723 OF 2023 % 12.06.2025 Between:

# R. Bal Reddy … Petitioner And $ The State of Telangana & Others … Respondents Gist:

> Head Note:

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri B. Praveen , learned counsel representing Sri P.Ragavender Reddy ^ Counsel for Respondent No.1 : GP for MA&UD ^ Counsel for Respondent No.2 : GP for Finance and Planning ^ Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 & 4: Sri G. Narayana, learned standing counsel ? Cases Referred:

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

(ii)1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii)2025 INSC 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(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) AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 SCC 1 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2020(4)ALD page 379 HON’BLE MRS JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.14723 OF 2023

ORDER:

Heard Sri B. Praveen, learned counsel representing Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for MA&UD appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 and Sri G. Narayana, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 and 4.

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

“….to issue Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing petitioner’s services in terms of orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (2006 (4) SCC 1) from the date of date of completion of 10 years of service as followed by this Hon'ble Court in WP No.24377/2007 dt. 8.9.2010 (2011 (1) ALD 234) as confirmed in WA No.782/2010 dt. 10.6.2013 and also in WP No. 27217/2017 dt. 19.9.2017 (2018 (2) ALD 282) and in WP No.23057/2019 dt. 21.4.2020 (2020 (4) ALD 379) is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to regularize petitioner’s services from the date of completion of 10 years as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case as followed by this Hon'ble Court in WP No.27217/2017, dt. 19.9.2017 and in several cases as referred supra with all attendant benefits 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:-

i) The petitioner was appointed on 29.12.1989 as Non PH Worker on NMR basis in the then Kapra Municipality, at present, the petitioner is working in Kapra Circle i.e., 4^th respondent circle of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, as such from the date of petitioner’s initial appointment petitioner had been continuously working without any blemish whatsoever from the higher authorities. It is further the case of the petitioner that after completion of 5 years of service, the petitioner was allowed to draw periodical increments from the date of granting time scale.

ii) I t is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner has put in more than 34 years of service on daily wage under the control of the respondents, though the petitioner has been working since long time, the services of the petitioner’s had not been regularized on the ground that the petitioner has not put in 5 years