I N THE HI GH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WRI T PETI TI ON No.32564 OF 2021 Between Sri Dharmarapu Eedappa … Petitioner And The State of Telangana & 4 Others … Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 14.08.2025 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.32564 OF 2021 % 14.08.2025 Between:

# Sri Dharmarapu Eedappa … Petitioner And $ The State of Telangana & 4 Others … Respondents Gist:

> Head Note:

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Ch.Ganesh ^ Counsel for Respondent No.1 to 3: AGP for Services-I ^ Counsel for Respondent No.4: Sri Ram Gopal, 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 (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. 32564 OF 2021

ORDER:

Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Rural Development, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 3, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 and Sri M. Ram Gopal Rao, learned Standing Counsel for ZPPS and MPPS and GPSS appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

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 inaction of the respondents in not treating the petitioner as regular one in the last grade post even after continuously working from 1982 to till date completed 39 long years service by not regularizing his services as per GO Ms. No.193 dated 14-03- 1990 and also not extending the last grade pay time scale benefits with periodical increments from the date of appointment of the petitioner from time to time as unjust and unfair, illegal and violative of Article 14, 16, 21, 39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of Constitution of India and the Govt. Orders issued from time to time in subjecting the petitioner for exploitative enslavement due to his helplessness conditions of poverty, poor social, economical political background by taking it as advantage by the respondents in continuing him as contingent worker without any service progress with monetary benefits on par with regular one for more than three decades and prays to direct the respondents herein to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one from the date of appointment i.e. 21-01-1982 in the last grade post with periodical increments from time to time with 100% compensation on arrears of pay by applying the principles laid by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs State of UP, Netram Sahu and Avthar Chand followed by Double Bench case of Khader Basha with WP No. 38763 of

2018 and also award exemplary cost...”.

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 08.09.2