I N THE HI GH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WRI T PETI TI ON No.25398 OF 2023 Between Sri M. Rajaiah … Petitioner And The State of Telangana & 4 Others … Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 13.08.2025 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.25398 OF 2023 % 13.07.2025 Between:

# M. Rajaiah … Petitioner And $ The State of Telangana & 4 Others … Respondents Gist:

> Head Note:

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Ch.Ganesh ^ Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 5: AGP for Services-II ? Cases Referred:

(i) (2020) 1 SCC (L&S)

(ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2025 I NSC 144 (iv) 2024 Law Suit(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) 2025 SCC ONLI NE SC 1735 (xv) (2019) 10 SCC 542 (xvi)Review Petition (C) No.9 of 2018, dated

16.01.2018 (xvii) (2001) 10 SCC 473 (xviii) Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.

1109/ 2022, dated 18.02.2022 HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.25398 OF 2023

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 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 absorbing the services of petitioners in last grade post from date of initial appointment of the petitioner for all purposes on par with regularly engaged last grade employees in respondent department as per Memo No. C/ GMRP/100/90 dt 25-10-90 and Lr. No. A/ Regular /01/ and dt 27-9-2001 and Lr. No. C/Misc/98 dated 15-9-2006 of respondent principal to 3^rd respondent Commissioner in violation of Articles 14, 16, 21, 39 (d), 43 and 300 A Constitution of India as unjust unfair illegal and unconstitutional and prays to direct the respondents herein to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in last grade post from the date of initial appointment of the petitioner w.e.f 30-10-1988 by applying the principle laid by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs State of U. P. (2019) (1) SCC 516) followed in WP No 33936 of 2011 and Batch Cases dated 02-05-2018 (2020 (4) ALD 379 TS DB and in W.A. No. 483 of 2021 dated 22.10.2021 based on principle laid by the Honble Supreme Court in C.A. No.1254 of 2018 Apex Court dated 23-03-2018 in the case of Netram Sahu Vs State of Chattisgarh and Anr in Civil Appeal No. 1254 of 2018 dated 23-03-2018 to reckon contingent services of petitioner for computation of qualifying service to grant of pension gratuity and other retirement benefits on his retirement by releasing all consequential monetary benefits in the last grade post on par with regularly engaged last grade employees of the respondent department along with periodical increments as revised from time to time with arrears of pay by granting 100 percentage 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 and Batch Cases dated 19-02-2019 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by applying the aforesaid principles of the Honble Apex Court under Article 141 of our Constitution by this Honble Court in the case of petitioner 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