Md. Yousuf vs The State of Telangana Advocate - GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV — WP/26722/2022
Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF NO COSTS on 08th October 2025.
CNR: HBHC010375112022
Filing Number
WP/31261/2022
Filing Date
22-Jun-2022
Registration No
WP/26722/2022
Registration Date
22-Jun-2022
Judge
Surepalli Nanda
Coram
Surepalli Nanda
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
WP ( 28 )
Sub-Category
SERVICE MATTERS ( 16 )
Judicial Branch
WRIT Section
Decision Date
08-Oct-2025
Nature of Disposal
--DISPOSED OF NO COSTS
Last updated 20-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Md. Yousuf
Adv. CH GANESH
Respondent(s)
-
1.The State of Telangana Advocate - GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV
-
2.The State of Telangana
Adv. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING (TG)
-
3.The District Collector
-
4.The Zilla Praja Parishad
Adv. R CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY (SC FOR TS ZILLA PARISHADS)
-
5.The Mandal Parishad Development Officer
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-Apr-2026
Surepalli NandaView PDF
Court Summary The Telangana High Court allowed a writ petition by Md. Yousuf, a contingent sweeper appointed in 1978, directing the state to regularize his services and grant him last-grade pay with periodic increments from his appointment date. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent establishing that temporary employees working continuously for over 10 years in sanctioned posts should be regularized as a one-time measure, finding the state's denial of regularization violated constitutional rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-Oct-2025
Admission
Surepalli Nanda
-
07-Oct-2025
Surepalli NandaView PDF
-
22-Jul-2022
Admission (Panchayat Raj)
B.Vijaysen Reddy
-
24-Jun-2022
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
22-Jun-2022
Case filed
Registration No. WP/26722/2022
Court Summary The Telangana High Court allowed a writ petition by Md. Yousuf, a contingent sweeper appointed in 1978, directing the state to regularize his services and grant him last-grade pay with periodic increments from his appointment date. The court relied on Supreme Court precedent establishing that temporary employees working continuously for over 10 years in sanctioned posts should be regularized as a one-time measure, finding the state's denial of regularization violated constitutional rights. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts