I N THE HI GH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WRI T PETI TI ON No.20382 OF 2022 Between:

Sri E.Venkateswarlu … Petitioner And The State of Telangana & 2 others … Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 01.04.2025 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.20382 OF 2022 % 01.04.2025 Between:

# Sri E.Venkateswarlu … Petitioner And $ The State of Telangana & 2 others … Respondents < Gist:

> Head Note:

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Jurispath ^ Counsel for the Respondents : Asst. G.P. 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) 14 SCC 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.20382 of 2022

ORDER:

Heard Sri Jurispath, 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:

“(a)…to issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner in the post of Water man cum Gardener/ Attender in the 3^rd respondent college without extending the benefit of G.O.MS.No.212, 22.04.1994 on par with similarly situated persons, who got regularized in view of the G.O.Ms.No.212, as per the orders in W.P.(TR).No.5110 of 2017, dated 10.08.2018 and W.P.No.16414 of 2019, dated 02.08.2019 which arises as per the analogy laid down in O.A.No.6988 of 1996, dated 14.09.1999, which was confirmed by the High court in W.P.No.16029 of 2000 dated 19.07.2010 is arbitrary, bad and illegal and violation of the principles of natural justice and Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled to have his services regularized under the guise of G.O.Ms.No.212, with all consequential benefits, pay, arrears of pay, increments on the analogy of the orders passed in the above matters, in the interest of justice.

(b) …for the reasons and circumstances stated above, the Hon’ble Court may be please to set aside the proceedings issued by the 2^nd respondent vide RC.No.OP.1-1/ 1559453/ 2022 dated 08.06.2022, in the interest of justice.”

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as a Waterman-cum-Gardener on a consolidated pay of Rs.75/- in respondent No.3 college on 27.01.1986, under Rule 10 (a) (1) (i) of the Andhra Pradesh Subordinate Service Rules, and has been in continuous service since then. The petitioner claimed entitlement to regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994, which was introduced to regularize the services of employees who worked continuously for a minimum period of 5 years before 25.11.1993. Despite filing O.A.No.6920 of 1996 and O.A.No.350 of 2000 for regularization of the petitioner’s service and the respondents having been directed by the Administrative Tribunal and the High Court to consider regularization, the respondents rejected the petitioner's claim vide proceedings dated 08.06.2022, stating that the petitioner’s appointment was "Part-Time," even though the petitioner worked full-time and performed additional duties, including sweeping the college premises. It is further the case of the petitioner that similarly situated employees, namely Mr. N. Bikshapathy and Md. Fareed, had their services regularized through similar legal proceedings, including O.A.No.6988 of 1996, W.P.No.16029 of 2000, W.P.(TR)No.5110 of 2017, and W.P