I N THE HI GH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WRI T PETI TI ON No.24654 OF 2020 Between Sri P. Sona … Petitioner And The State of Telangana & 2 Others … Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 31.07.2025 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.24654 OF 2020 % 31.07.2025 Between: # P. Sona … Petitioner And $ The State of Telangana & 2 Others … Respondents Gist:

> Head Note:

! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Ch.Ganesh ^ Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: AGP for Services-I ^ Counsel for Respondent No.3: 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 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) 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. 24654 OF 2020

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 2 and Sri Kishore Rao Puskuru, learned Standing Counsel for TS Zilla Parishads, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3.

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 recalling impugned Proceedings in Memo No. B4/2507/2010, dated.19.07.2010 since one decade for wrongly treating her as part time sweeper instead of full time sweeper as per here appointment order in Proceedings No. B1/65/84 dated.16.02.1984 to deny regularization of services of petitioner in the last grade post, even after exhaust of all his life energies , youth since 36 long years, as unjust, unfair and illegal and consequently, prays to direct the Respondents herein to regularize the services of the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dt. 22-04-1994, by applying the old rules as per the judgement of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Y.V.Rangaiah and Ors Vs. J.Sreenivasa Rao and Ots (AIR 1983 SC 852) by treating her as Full Time Sweeper as per her appointment letter dated.16.02.1984, from the date of her eligibility on par with his immediate junior with all consequential monetary benefits including seniority in the Last Grade Post by applying principle laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of B.Srinivasulu Vs. The Nellore Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner in Civil Appeal No. 6318 of 2015, dt. 17-08-2015, and also on her retirement grant gratuity and pension as per the directions of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh in Caivil Appeal No.6798 of 2019, Netram Sahu Vs. State of Chattisgarh in Civil Appeal No. 1254 of 2018, and pass such order or orders in the interest of justice...”.

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