I N THE HI GH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WRI T PETI TI ON No.28476 OF 2022 Between:

B.Lingaiah … Petitioner And The State of Telangana & Others … Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 06.08.2025 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.28476 OF 2022 % 06.08.2025 Between:

# B.Lingaiah … 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-I ^ 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 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2020(4)ALD page 379 THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.28476 OF 2022

ORDER:

Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned Standing Counsel 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 for working from several long years on full time even not paying legitimate wages of Full Time Sweeper, as per appointment order dated 13.06.1985, as unjust, unfair, totally arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 16, 21, 39 (d), 43 & 300 (A) of our Constitution in denying legitimate living wages to petitioner by not implementing Section 13 and 15 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and provisions of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and Govt. Orders from time to time, to pay living wages to petitioner 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 by applying the decision and principle laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs State of U.P. (2019 (1) SCC 516) and Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in WP No 33936 of 2011 and Batch Cases dated

02.05.2018 (2020 (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) followed by decision of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in W.A.No. 483 of 2021 dated 05.08.2021 based on principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 1254 of 2018 Apex Court, dated 23.03.2018 to reckon contingent services of petitioner for computation of qualifying service to grant of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits by releasing consequential monetary benefits in the last grade post including periodical increments, as revised from time to time 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 the aforesaid principles and decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court & Division Benches under Article 141 of our Constitution by this Hon'ble 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 in particular, to the services rendered by petitioner with the respondents herein for more than a decade con