I N THE HI GH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WRI T PETI TI ON No.37823 OF 2022 Between Sukka Narsamma … Petitioner And The State of Telangana & Others … Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 04.08.2025 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.37823 OF 2022 % 04.08.2025 Between:

# Sukka Narsamma … 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 3: AGP for Services-I ^ Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 & 5: Sri P.Kishore Rao, 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.37823 OF 2022

ORDER:

Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 and Sri P. Kishore Rao, learned Standing Counsel for ZPPS AND MPP AND GPPS, appearing on behalf of respondent No4 & 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 retgular one in last grade post from date of appointment of petitioner by denying to pay legitimate living wages for actually working as full time sweeper for all purposes on par with regularly engaged last grade employees in respondent department as per High power committee report of 1^st respondent dated 07.10.1996 in violation of Articles 14, 16, 21, 39 (3), 43 & 300 (A) of four Constitution by not implementing Section 13 & 15 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and provisions of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 in spite of abolition of the bounded labour as per Act, 1976 in treating the petitioner as slave or bonded labour by paying pittance wage of Rs.4,000/- even after continuously working on full time from nearly four decades as unjust, unfair, illegal and unconstitutional and prays to call for the official records relating to service conditions, seniority and sanctioned posts of contingent sweepers last grade post from the date of initial appointment of petitioner 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 02052018 2020 4 ALD 379 TS DB and in W A No 483 of 2021 dated 05082021 based on principle laid by the Honble Supreme Court in C A No 1254 of 2018 Apex Court dated 23032018 in the case of Netram Sahu Vs State of Chattisgarh and Anr in Civil Appeal No 1254 of 2018 dated 23032018 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 departments along with periodical increments as revised from time to time with arrears of pay by granting 100percent compensation as per