I N THE HI GH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WRI T PETI TI ON No.32016 OF 2021 Between:

Shaik Hussain Saheb … Petitioner And The State of Telangana & Others … Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 20.08.2025 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.32016 OF 2021 % 20.08.2025 Between:

# Shaik Hussain Saheb … 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-II ^ Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 & 5: 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 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) AI R 2020 Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 SCC 1 THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.32016 OF 2021

ORDER:

Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I I appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned Standing Counsel for ZPP and MPP appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 and 5.

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

“…to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature 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, even after exhaust of life energies and youth in 39 years long service, as unjust, unfair, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 16, 21, 39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of our Constitution in denying legitimate living wages of last grade pay and prays to direct the 1^st Respondents herein to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one from the date of initial appointment i.e. from 16-06-1982 by applying the decision and principle laid by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court reported in 2020 (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) and by applying the decision and principle laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 36 and 37 in the Judgement in C.A.No. 6798/2019 & Batch Cases dated 02-09-2019 (2019 (10) SCC 516) in C.A.No.1254 of 2018 to reckon contingent services of petitioner for computation of qualifying service to grant of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits with all consequential monetary benefits including seniority with arrears of pay in last grade post along with periodical increments, as revised from the date of appointment of the petitioner with 100% 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 & Batch Cases dated 19-02-2019 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by applying principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court under Article 141 of our Constitution and pass.....”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placing reliance on the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition pertaining in particular, to the services rendered by petitioner with the respondents herein for more than a decade contends that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.

PERUSED THE RECORD:-

DI SCUSSI ON AND CONCLUSI ON:-

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the subject issue in the present case is squarely covered by the order of this Court, dated 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2007 reported in 2011(1) ALD, Page 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2010, dated 10.06.2013 and a