SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 74681

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
K. Papaiah And 16 Others – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana And 34 Others – Respondent
WP 46922/2022



HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.46922 OF 2022

ORDER:

Heard Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of General Administration appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 12 to 18, Sri Kishore Rao Puskuru, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.10, 11, 33 and 34 and Sri R.Chandra Shekhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.5 to 9, 19 to 32 and 35.

2. The petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition seeking the prayer as under:

“...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction or more particularly one in the Nature of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents in non-regularizing the services of the petitioners in terms of the Honorable Supreme Court judgments and not regularizing the services of the petitioners on par at par regularized the service of one of the members of the union Sri Md. Masood Ali, Bore well Mechanic (Hand Pump Mechanic), working at Both, Adilabad District through G.O.Rt.No.182, dated 14.03.2017 as illegal, arbitrary, high discriminatory, unjust, unfair unreasonable, irrational, unconstitutional, unlawful and in violation of Articles 14, 16, 19, 21 and 23 of the Constitution of India and in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and against to a catena of Judgments of an Apex Court and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in purview of the Judgments of an Apex Court with consequential benefits and pass...”

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

The petitioners are appointed as Bore well Mechanics (NMR basis) in the State of Telangana, and worked as such for decades. The petitioners are questioning the action of the respondents in not-regularizing the services of the petitioners and not paying the salaries of minimum time scale to the petitioners, who are discharging the duties on par with the regular employees. It is further the case of the petitioners that services of one union member, Mr.Md.Masood Ali, Bore well Mechanic was regularized through G.O.Rt.No.182, dated 14.03.2017 but services of petitioners however had not been regularized inspite of repeated requests made by the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD:

A) The Counter Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.35 and in particular, Paragraph Nos.5, 6 & 8 are extracted hereunder:

“5. It is submitted that, it is true that the hand pump mechanics who are working as daily wage workers, work under the instructions of MPDO whenever their services are needed throughout the mandal and they were not appointed by the MPDO, they are not liable to be absorbed or regularized as they have not been appointed by competent authority against any available vacancies. I t is further submitted that they don't work throughout month, only they render their services whenever they are required to.

6. It is submitted that the pump mechanics are liable to repair and are free to work anywhere and not bound to stay from morning to evening, they are hired whenever their services are required and paid according to standard schedule rates and G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 17/01/2012 which sums Rs.

11,138/- per month.

8. It is submitted that the service of only Mr.Masood Ahmed who was appointed under proper appointment order and the petitioner Nos.1 and 13 herein is only a daily wage worker and not been appointed under any appointment order. So, there is no discrimination and which doesn’t forbid any Article i.e., 14, 16 of the Constitution of India.”

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners pla

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top