IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.3793 of 2025 THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL 2026 Between:

Thigala Rajagattaiah.

…Petitioner AND The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Chairman & Managing Director and Director (Finance) and others.

…Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Sri M.Laxman Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri C.Raman Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL) appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent No.4 in issuing the impugned order vide Ref.SCP/OFFICE/2024/539 dated 24.10.2024 for termination and non-renewal of contract employment as Junior Assistant without conducting any enquiry, charge- sheet and without affording an opportunity of being heard as contemplated under Clause Nos.27.1 & 27.2 of SCCL Standing Orders, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Contract Junior Assistant vide Ref.No.SCP/Office/39/2014/4821 dated 02.07.2014 and joined on 18.06.2014 and had been working in the office of the respondent No.4-College by entering into agreements of contract for service with the respondent No.3 from the academic year 2014-15 and continued till 2023-24.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.3 issued a circular vide Ref.SCES/SEC/2024 /542 dated 27.04.2024 for termination of all contract employees for the academic year 2023-24 and thereafter renewed the contracts of all similarly situated employees vide Circular dated 10.06.2024, except the petitioner herein. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 issued a memo vide Ref.No.SCP/Office/2A/2024/217 dated 30.04.2024 terminating the petitioner for the academic year 2023-24 and did not renew the petitioner’s contract for the academic year 2024-25 along with similarly situated employees, without assigning any reasons.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that after the petitioner’s termination, he had received a message from the respondent No.4 dated 11.05.2024 advising him to attend election duty from 12.05.2024 to 13.05.2024, POLYCET-2024 duty from 23.05.2024 to 24.05.2024 and office administration work from 27.05.2024 to 31.05.2024 and the petitioner performed the said duties and received salary and was under the impression that his contract employment would be extended for the next academic year. Subsequently, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 21.06.2024 and a representation dated 20.08.2024 requesting the respondents to renew his contract employment as Junior Assistant for the academic year 2024-25, but the respondents did not respond. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents in terminating and not renewing the petitioner’s contract employment without assigning any reason, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.22573 of 2024 seeking to direct the respondents to renew the petitioner’s contract employment as Junior Assistant along with other contract employees for the academic year 2024-25, by considering his representation dated 20.08.2024.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that, this Court, vide order dated 29.08.2024 in I.A.No.2 of 2024 in W.P.No.22573 of 2024, granted interim direction to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 20.08.2024 and in pursuance of the same, the respondent No.4 issued the impugned order vide Ref.SCP/OFFICE/2024/539 dated 24.10.2024. The impugned order dated 24.10.2024 was passed without conducting any enquiry, issuing any charge-sheet or affording any opportunity of being heard and the reasons assigned therein were unlawful.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.4 never conducted any enquiry on the alleged reasons for termination and