SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 2182

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
S. A. V. Sesha Chari – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 40830/2025



I N THE HI GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.40830 of 2025 Dated : 05.01.2026 Between S.A. V. Sesha Chari, .... Petitioner AND The State of Telangana rep. by rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 4 others.

... Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Sri Sridhar Lonkala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing on behalf of respondents.

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

“…to issue a writ, order, or direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the monthly salary to the petitioner since July, 2024 onwards inspite of working as part time lecturer, Subject English, at Government Degree College, Siddipet, Siddipet District without any complaints is illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and against the principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents to pay the monthly salary to the petitioner from July, 2024 with interest @ 24% per annum from July, 2024 and to pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”.

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 appointed as part time lecturer in English in the year 1993 and the services of the petitioner has been extended from time to time and at present the petitioner is working at Government Degree College, Siddipet since 2012. The respondents are not paying salary from July, 2024 to the petitioner and the petitioner made several oral representations requesting the authorities for payment of salary from July, 2024 but the authorities have not considered the same. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.

DI SCUSSI ON AND CONCLUSI ON :

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly puts forth the following submissions (a) The respondents are not paying monthly salary to the petitioner since July, 2024 in spite of petitioner having discharged duties as part time lecturer in English at Government Degree College, Siddipet without any complaints against the petitioner from any forum.

(b) A bare perusal of the proceedings of the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, Warangal vide Progs. in File No. CCE-SER1/1/2021-SER1, dated 29.09.2022 indicates that the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Telangana State, Hyderabad permitted the principals of the Government Degree Colleges concerned to utilize the services of the part time lecturers. Accordingly, the services of the petitioner had been extended for the academic year 2022-2023 and thereafter further the services of the petitioner had been extended for the academic year 2023-2024 vide Procgs. file No.CCE-SER11/2021-SER1, dated 21.08.2023 and services of the petitioner had been continuing as on date.

(c) However, in spite of several representations addressed by the petitioner herein to the respondents herein orally for payment of salary from July, 2024 onwards, the authorities have not considered the request of the petitioner till date. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

Basing on the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.

5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education, appearing on behalf of respondents contends that the petitioner had not addressed any written representation to the respondents herein and therefore, no Mandamus lies complaining inaction against the respondents herein.

6. A bare perusal of the averments at para No.7 of the affidavit filed in support of the present w

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top