M.Suryanarayana And 6 Others vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 4091 Tel

                                                                1




HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                                             W.P.No.31457 of 2021
ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"to issue a writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that (a)The action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners from the date on which they completed the required service in terms of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi Vs State of Karnataka reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 and in terms of judgment of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court reported in 2018 (2) ALD 282 as illegal and arbitrary violating Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India (b)further declare that petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services from the date on which they completed required service in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2006 (4) SCC (1) and also in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court reported in 2018 (2) ALD 282 with all consequences benefits ( c)and pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

Heard Sri M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for

the respondents.

All the petitioners are working as Work Inspectors Grade-II in

different Panchayat Sub Divisions in Khammam District and all of them

have rendered their services in the charged establishment before 1993

and have completed more than 10 years of continuous service as on

10.04.2006. Their grievance is that though they are eligible for

regularization of their services in terms of the law laid down by the

Apex Court in Uma Devi vs. State of Karnataka1, the respondents are

not regularizing their services. The Superintending Engineer-in-Chief

has submitted proposals to the Engineer-in-Chief recommending the

cases of the petitioners for regularization of their services. The

Engineer-in-Chief, in turn, forwarded the proposals to the 1st

respondent. Thereafter, the 1st respondent forwarded the proposals to

the 2nd respondent and matter is pending with the 2nd respondent.

2006(4) SCC (1)

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that

appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the 2nd

respondent to consider the proposals submitted by the 3rd respondent.

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents

contended that since the proposals submitted by the 3rd respondent are

pending with the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent would consider the

same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned

counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that this Writ Petition

can be disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider the

proposals submitted by the 3rd respondent on 3.12.2018 and pass

appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of three

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_______________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI Date: 02-12-2021 rkk