I N THE HI GH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WRI T PETI TI ON No.25985 OF 2022 Between Sri Golla Mallaiah … Petitioner And The State of Telangana & Others … Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 22.07.2025 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.25985 OF 2022 % 22.07.2025 Between:

# Sri Golla Mallaiah … 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-II ^ Counsel for Respondent No.4: 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 HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.25985 OF 2022

ORDER:

Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I I , appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned Standing Counsel for appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 & 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 inaction of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner nor granting last grade time scale benefits to petitioner even after working on full time basis from 35 long years in the contingent post without any service progress by paying pittance wage of Rs.4000/ per month by denying him to pay legitimate or living wages in violation of provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 Equal Remuneration Act 1976 and Article 14, 16, 21, 39(d), 43, 300(A) of our Constitution and not implementing Govt Orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.193 GAD dated 14.03.1990 and subsequent Govt Orders by the respondent Chief Executive Officers as unjust unfair totally illegal and unconstitutional by subjecting the petitioner for exploitative enslavement due to his helplessness conditions of poverty poor social economical political background by taking it as advantage by the respondents 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 Honble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs State of U.P (2019 (1) SCC 516) and Division Bench of this Honble Court in W.P. No. 33936 of 2011 and Batch Cases dated 02.05.2018 (2020 (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) followed by decision of the Honble 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 percentage 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 and Batch Cases dated 19.02.2019 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by applying the aforesaid principles and decisions of the honble Apex Court and Division Benches under Article 141 of our Constitution by this Honble Court in the case of p