M. Nageshwar Rao v. The State of Telangana

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

Judgment date: 2020-12-28

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-12-28. M. Nageshwar Rao v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.

Judgment text

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION NO: 15702 OF 2020 Between: 1. [M. Nageshwar Rao, S/o. Kondaiah, aged about 56 years, Fitte(lTl), R/o. Flat No. 104, Sharanya Green Homes Appts. , Near Nandipadu By-pass, lt/iryalaguda, Nalgonda District. 2. A. Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Chennaiah, aged about 54 years, Helper, R/o. [t4unagala village and lMandal,5 Nalgonda District. (Now Suryapet District 3. [\/. Krishnaiah, S/o. Gopaiah, aged about 52 years, lvlan lVazdoor, R/o Munagala village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. (Now Suryapet District 4. K. Satyanarayana, S/o Narayana aged about 57 Years, Helper, R/o lVunagala Village and lt/andal, Nalgonda District. (Now Suryapet District) 5. A. Rangaiah, S/o. Chandraiah, aged about 5'1 years Helper, C/o. A. Srinivasa Rao, H. No.

4-138-1-1, Bhavani Nagar, Kodada, Nalgonda District. (Now Suryapet District) 6. H. Subrahmanyam, Sio. Sastry, aged about 53 years, Watchman, R/o. Nandipad village, Ivliryalaguda mandal, Nalgonda district. 7. D. Nageshwar Rao, S/o. Bushaiah, aged About 54 years, Helper (lTl), R/o. lVungala Village and ft/andal, Nalgonda District. (Now Suryapet District) 8. A. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Gandhi, aged about 54 years, Helper (lTI), R/o. I\/unagala village and mandal, Nalgonda district. (Now Suryapet District) 9. Bandla Hussain, S/o Saidaiah, aged 52 years, Occ Work lnspector, Rio. Aacheryula Gudem, Bathol (lt/), Nalgonda District, (Now Suryapet District 10. Shaik Jamaal Shareef, S/o. Shaik Yousuf Shareef, ala 52 Years, Helper,l\/iryalaguda Circle, Tekulapally Division, Khammam District ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Telangana, rep.

by its Principal Secretary, lrrigation & CAD Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad-500022 2 The Engineer-in-Chief , lrrigation & CAD Department, Erramanzil, State of Telangana, Hyderabad-500 082. 3. The Chief Engineer, N. S. L. C. Project, Hill Colony, Nagarjunasagar, Nalgonda District. 4. The Superintending Engineer, NS. L. B. C. O & N/ Circle, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District 5. The Superintending Engineer, NS. Dam Circle Hill Colony, Nagarjunasagar Nalgonda District. 6. The Executive Engineer, NS,L. C. Division, IVliryalaguda, Nalgonda District. 7. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyd era bad-500022. ...

RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of [\,4andamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the cases of the petitioners for regularization of their services as per G. o. lr,4s. No. 143, lrrigation (Ser. V) Department, dt. 16-03-84, notionally on completion of 5 years of serviie, as was done in case of similarly placed persons, as illegal, arbitrary and u ncon stitutiona I being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services as per G. o. Ms. No. 143, lrrigation (ser. V) Department, dt.

16-03-84, notionally on completion of 5 years of service, as well as the Judgments of this Honble court and Honble supreme court, with all consequential benefits. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under section 'l 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularization of their services as per G. O. Ms. No. 143, lrrigation (Ser. V) Departmeni, dt. 16_03_84, on completion of 5 years of service, as well as the Judgments of this Honble court and Honble Supreme court, by passing orders on the representations of the petitioners, the latest being 04-04-2018, pending final disposal of the main W. p. Counsel for the Petitioners:SRt. A K JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel forthe Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES ll The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.

15702 of2020 ORDER: This r,,'rit petition is being disposed of at the admissior. r stage with the consent of both the parties. This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: ". . . . to issue a u'rit in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioners for regularization of their sewices as per G. O. Ms. No. 143, Inigation (Ser'V) Department' dt. 16. 03. 84, notionally on completion of 5 years of service. as was done in case of similarly placed persons' as iltegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 ol Constitution ol India and consequently direct the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for regularization of their services as per G. O. Ms. No. l43, Irrigation (Ser'V) Departnlent, cIt. 16. 03.

84, notionally on completion of 5 years of seruice, as well as the Judgn-rents of this Hon'ble Courl and Hon'ble Supreme Court, rvith all to pass such other order or consequential benefits, and orders as this Fion'bte Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. " for the petitioners' and Heard Sri A. K. Jayaprakash Rao, counsel for the respondents' for Services-Il appearing the Government Pleader they by the petitioners that since 1983' It l. ras been contended Man Mazdoor and Work are working as Fitter, Helper, Watchman, The grievance of the petitioners is Inspector, with the respondents. that though they are working since 1983, the respondents are not AKS'] W. P. No. l5? 02 01 2020 considering their case for regularization of their services The to the respondents petitioners have submitted a detailed representation terms them to regularize their services in ol on 04. 04.

2018 requesting v' Supreme Courl in State of Karnataka the judgment of the Hon'ble have not passed any orders on far the respondents Umadevil, but so the said rePresentatlon. Counsel for the petitioners contended that, in fact, respondent No. 4 has recommended the case of the petitioners in terms ol G. O. Ms. No. l43dated16. 03. 1984,butthereafternoordersarebeing by respondent No'4' Therefore' passed on the recommendations made be passed counsel for the petitioners contended that appropriate orders directing respondent No' 1 to consider the in the writ petition by No. 4 and pass appropriate recommendations made respondent orders in accordance with law.

appearing for the respondents contended Govemment Pleadel the case of the petitioners and that the respondents would consider accordance with 1aw' pass appropriate orders in submissions made by the counsel Having considered the rival considered view that this this Court is of the for respective parties, writ petition can be disposed of directing respondent No' 1 to consider and pass appropriate made by respondent No. 4 the recommendations respondents to pass with law, and also the orders in accordance by the petitioners representation submitted appropriate orders on the (2006) 4 scc I ' AKS. J J w. P. No. 15702 of 2020 on04. 04. 20lSwithinareasonableperiodoftime,preferablywithin three rnonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this order' With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of' No order as to costs petitions, if any, shall stand closed' Pending miscellaneous SD/-K.

VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGIS R ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, State of Telangana' 1 The PrinciDal Secretary, lrrigation and CAD Department' Secietariai Buildings, Hyderabad-500022 - Department' Erramanzil' state of 2 i;;' d;i;;er-in--cfi iet, lfi s;ji;;;;a-CAb Telanoa'na, HYderabad-500 082. Hiil cotony, Nasarjunasasar, Nalsonda 3. fi;'i'##i;tjiii,iiir. s. t. c. -et1ect, District, +. in"e Sup"rintending Engineer, NS L'B C O and M Circle' Miryalaguda' Nalgonda District Hill Colony' Nagarjunasagar s. ifrt'Superintending Engineer' NS. Dam Circle Naloonda District. NS. L. c Divis-ion, Mirvllaguda' Nalg-onda District' 6 ifi;'E;;riti"'Enginu"r, princioal 7 The Secretary,' Fina nci inO Plannind Department, State of Telangana, Seiretariat Buildings, Hyderabad-500022 8. 6;;6c 6 sii. A. k-. 'Lavuprakash Rao, Advocate [oPUCl -cp nish Ci,utt for the State oi Telansana [oUT] 9. i;; ccrio tor. se. i[['Jiil 10. Two CD CoPies. PIV HIGH COURT DATED:2811212020 'yti: TA I€ 1 z c N ? 021 (. ) J A 0 2. c -!

, * ORDER i) P,arT WP. No. 15702 of 2020 Disposing of the WP Without costs. \? - 0l )D+

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.