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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 17086

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
K. Ramchandar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and 3 others – Respondent
WP 46381/2022



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI

WRIT PETITION NO.46381 OF 2022

DATED : 14.05.2026

Between:

A.Ramachandar

... Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal

Secretary, MA & UD Department, Secretariat

Buildings, Hyderabad and 3 others

... Respondents

O R D E R

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus

to call for the records relating to the impugned orders dt.22.08.2024 and

to set aside the same by declaring them as illegal, arbitrary and violative

of principles of natural justice and also contrary to the law laid down by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab and

others Vs. Jagjith Singh and others, (2017) 1 SCC 148 and consequently to direct the

##PAGE2##

W.P.No.46381 of 2022

2

respondents to extend the benefit of minimum time scale as per the law

laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab

and others Vs. Jagjith Singh and others (1 supra) on par with the

petitioner’s juniors and also to pay the arrears and to pass such other

order or orders.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are that the

petitioner was appointed as a Public Health Worker on 01.09.1987 on

daily wage basis in respondent No.4 organization and when his services

were terminated orally on 01.05.1993 without assigning any reasons and

without any notice, the termination order was challenged in I.D.No.163

of 1996 before the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad and vide order

dt.31.07.1998, the Labour Court granted the relief of reinstatement with

continuity of service but without back wages and the same was assailed

by respondent No.4 in W.P.No.21392 of 2002 before this Court. It is

submitted that despite being reinstated, the petitioner is receiving only

Rs.10,000/- per month, while the juniors of the petitioner are receiving

the minimum time scale and regularisation status since 16.03.2009. It is

submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.Manjula

Bhashini and others Vs. Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh

##PAGE3##

W.P.No.46381 of 2022

3

Women’s Co-operative Finance Corporation Limited and another

citing G.O.Ms.No.212, Finance and Planning Department, dated

22.04.1994, directed the Government of Andhra Pradesh to regularise all

eligible daily wage, temporary part time employees within four months

regardless of any prior dismissed legal claims. It is submitted that

though respondent No.4, vide letter dt.28.02.2017, has addressed to the

District Collector/Chairman, Nizamabad and confirmed the availability

of 3 vacancies, the respondents have failed to regularise the services of

the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has made a

representation dt.04.05.2015 for regularisation of his services, but the

respondents have not taken any action thereon and therefore, the

petitioner filed O.A.No.6320 of 2015 and due to the Tribunal’s

abolition, the case was transferred to this Court and is pending for

consideration before this Court and that the respondents have not filed a

counter affidavit in the said case till date. The petitioner is therefore

seeking a direction to the respondents to pay minimum time scale of pay

to the petitioner on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ as laid

down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and

others Vs. Jagjith Singh and others (1 supra).

2 (2009) 8 SCC 431

##PAGE4##

W.P.No.46381 of 2022

4

3. Respondent No.4 has filed a counter affidavit stating that pursuant

to the directions of the Labour Court, the petitioner has been reinstated

into service on 11.12.2002 and since the petitioner has already been

reinstated into service, the Writ Petition filed by the Corporation has

been dismissed by this Court on 20.03.2012. It is submitted that the

petitioner was appointed as a daily wage vehicle loader in March, 1990

and not in 1987 as claimed by the petitioner and that the said fact is

confirmed by the Municipal Council records dt.11.01.1993 and that the

petitioner was reinstated

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