I N THE HI GH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WRI T PETI TI ON No.16501 OF 2021 Between:

G. Venkatesham … Petitioner And The State of Telangana & Others … Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 01.08.2025 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.16501 OF 2021 % 01.08.2025 Between:

# G. Venkatesham … Petitioner And $ The State of Telangana & Others … Respondents Gist:

> Head Note:

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Ch.Ganesh ^ Counsel for Respondents: AGP for Services-I ? Cases Referred: (i) 2025 I NSC 144 (ii) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1209 (iii)(2017) 1 SCC 148 (iv)2010(9) SCC 247 (v)(2013) 14SCC 65 (vi)2015 SCC Online SC 1797 (vii) (2015) 8 SCC 265 (viii) (2014) 7 SCC 223 (ix) SLP No.32847 of 2024 HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.16501 OF 2021

ORDER:

Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents.

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 rejecting the case of the petitioner for regularization of petitioner services as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka & others Vs. Umadevi, vide impugned Proc. Rc.No.33-B2/2019 dt.05.08.2019, on the ground that the petitioner is working not more than two hours in a day, contrary to their own correspondence of the respondents as highly illegal, unconstitutional against the principles of natural justice and prays to direct the respondents herein to set aside the impugned Proc. Rc.No.33-B2/2019, dt.05.08.2019, with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka & others Vs. Umadevi and by following the latest Division Bench Orders of this Hon’ble Court in WP.No.23057 of 2019, dt.21.04.2020 by reviewing the speaking order, dt.05.08.2019 and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.”

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present Writ Petition is as under:

i) The petitioner was appointed on 27.08.2009 as a contingent Librarian in the Zilla Grandhalaya Samstha, Medak on a consolidated pay of Rs.300/-, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.1,000/- per month. Though designated as a part-time worker, the petitioner was assigned six hours of duty per day in accordance with official instructions issued by the Director of Public Libraries vide proceedings Rc.No.121-

B2/86 dated 05.09.1986.

ii) In O.A. No. 1438 of 2006 and batch, the A.P. Administrative Tribunal vide orders dated 11.02.2010 directed the respondents to pay minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The said order was challenged by the respondents herein, in W.P.No.28140 of 2010, which was dismissed on 20.02.2013. The dismissal was further affirmed on 19.08.2014 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.12558 of 2014.

iii) It is the specific case of the petitioner that contingent workers in other Government Departments, such as Panchayat Raj and Health, are receiving last-grade pay scales and benefits, while library workers, despite performing similar or longer service, continue to receive only nominal wages.

iv) The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.No.12858 of 2019 seeking regularization. However, the claim was rejected by the respondents vide proceedings Rc.No.33-B2/2019 dated 05.08.2019 on the ground that the petitioner was