I N THE HI GH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WRI T PETI TI ON No.12076 OF 2021 Between Sri G. Buchaiah … Petitioner And The State of Telangana & 2 Others … Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 18.07.2025 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.12076 OF 2021 % 18.07.2025 Between:

# G. Buchaiah … 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.12076 OF 2021

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 No.1 and Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TG ZPP MPP GPPS, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 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 regularizing the services of petitioner in the last grade post, even after exhaust of all his life energies, youth since 35 long years, in ignoring his case while regularizing services of far and far juniors of petitioner 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, Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dt. 22/04/1994, by applying principle laid down by the Honble Supreme Court under Article 144 of our Constitution 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, to regularize services of petitioner on completion of initial service of 5 years w.e.f., 14/07/1979, granting gratuity and pension by applying principle of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh in Civil Appeal No.6798 of 2019, and in the case of Netram Sahu Vs. State of Chattisgarh in Civil Appeal No. 1254 of 2018, by paying 100 percent compensation with arrears of all time contingent wages from 1974 to till date from time to time by applying Principle laid by Apex Court in the case of Union of I ndia Vs. Avtar Chand with arrears and pass...”.

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 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2007 reported in 2011(1) ALD, Page 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2010, dated 10.06.2013 and also order, dated 19.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.27217 of 2017 reported in 2018 (2) ALD Pa