I N THE HI GH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WRI T PETI TI ON No.1384 OF 2023 Between:

M. Ram Reddy & 4 others … Petitioners And The State of Telangana & 14 Others … Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 19.08.2025 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.1384 OF 2023 % 19.08.2025 Between:

# M. Ram Reddy & 4 others … Petitioners And $ The State of Telangana & 14 Others … Respondents Gist:

> Head Note:

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar ^ Counsel for Respondent No.1: GP for General Administration ^ Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4, 8 to 10: GP for Services-II ^ Counsel for Respondent Nos.5 to 7, 11 to 15: Sri R.Chandra Shekar ? 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 (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.1384 OF 2023

ORDER:

Heard Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for General Administration appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Services-I I appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 8, 9 and 10 and Sri R.Chandra Shekar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 5, to 7, 11 to 15.

2. The petitioners approached this Court seeking the 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 non-regularizing the services of the petitioners in terms of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgments and not regularizing the services of the petitioners on par at par regularized the service of one of the members of the union Sri Md. Masood Ali, Bore well Mechanic (Hand Pump Mechanic), working at Both, Adilabad District through G.O.Rt.No.182, Dtd: 14.03.2017 as illegal, arbitrary, high discriminatory, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, irrational, unconstitutional, unlawful and in violation of Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India and in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and against to a catena of Judgments of an Apex Court and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in purview of the Judgments of an Apex Court with consequential benefits and pass such other order…”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners 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 petitioners with the respondents herein for more than a decade contends that the petitioners are 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 also order, dated 19.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.27217 of 2017 reported in 2018 (2) ALD Page 282 and also the order, dated 21.04.2020 passed in W.P.No.23057 of 2019 reported in 2020(4) ALD Page 379. 5. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.5 to 7, 11 to 15 submits that the grievance of t