Safiya Malik

The Telangana High Court has disposed of a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking equal implementation of the Indiramma Atmiya Bharosa Scheme for landless agricultural laborers in municipal areas. The petitioner argued that while rural laborers received the scheme’s benefits, their counterparts in municipal areas were excluded. The court directed the relevant state authorities to consider the petitioner's representation within four weeks. The bench clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

The petitioner, Gavinolla Srinivas, a resident of Narayanpet district and engaged in agriculture, approached the Telangana High Court by filing Writ Petition (PIL) No. 5 of 2025 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus against the State of Telangana and various officials, challenging the implementation of the Indiramma Atmiya Bharosa Scheme.

According to the petitioner, the scheme, as per Government Order (G.O.) Rt. No. 42, dated January 10, 2025, grants financial assistance of ₹12,000 per annum to landless agricultural laborers. However, the benefit was extended only to those residing in villages, excluding similarly placed laborers in municipal areas. The petitioner contended that this distinction was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner further alleged that the non-extension of benefits was unjust, unfair, and in violation of constitutional principles.

The petitioner, through his counsel Sri Prabhakar Chikkudu, submitted that he did not challenge the validity of G.O. Rt. No. 42 itself but objected to its selective implementation. The petitioner argued that landless agricultural laborers residing in municipal areas were similarly placed and should receive equal treatment.

During the proceedings, the petitioner acknowledged that the Panchayat Raj Department, which issued the government order, primarily governs rural areas and lacks jurisdiction over municipal regions. The petitioner stated that he had already submitted a representation to the government on January 16, 2025, requesting an extension of the scheme’s benefits to agricultural laborers in municipal areas. The petitioner sought a direction from the court for the authorities to consider and decide on his representation.

On behalf of the respondents, the Special Government Pleader Sri P. Sridhar Reddy appeared for the Advocate General. The respondents did not object to the petitioner's request that the government consider his representation.

The division bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara, examined the contentions of both parties. The court noted that the petitioner’s grievance was not against G.O. Rt. No. 42 itself but its restricted implementation. The petitioner argued that the benefit should be extended to municipal areas as well.

The court recorded the petitioner’s submission as follows: "The petitioner has no grievance against G.O.Rt.No. 18 dated 10.01.2025, inasmuch as it provides benefit of Indiramma Atmiya Bharosa Scheme to the families of landless agricultural labourers. However, the said benefit was extended in favour of the beneficiaries residing in the rural areas whereas such benefit should have been extended to similarly situated persons residing in Municipal areas as well."

The petitioner further conceded that the Panchayat Raj Department, which implemented the scheme, is primarily responsible for rural governance and may not have the authority to extend the scheme to municipal areas. The court recorded: "However, during the course of hearing, he fairly admitted that such a direction could not have been issued by Panchayat Raj Department which is mainly dealing with the villages and not the Municipal areas."

The petitioner had already submitted a representation on January 16, 2025, to the Chief Secretary of the State of Telangana, requesting an extension of the scheme to municipal laborers. The court noted that the petitioner merely sought a direction for its consideration. The respondents, represented by the Special Government Pleader, did not oppose this limited request. The court recorded: "The other side has no objection to this innocuous prayer."

Based on the submissions made by both parties, the Telangana High Court disposed of the writ petition with the following order: "Accordingly, this Writ petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to resubmit the aforesaid representation, along with copy of this order before respondent Nos.1 and 4. In turn, the said respondents shall consider and decide said representation in accordance with law within four weeks therefrom. The outcome shall be communicated to the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. No costs."

The court directed the petitioner to resubmit his representation along with a copy of the order to the Chief Secretary of Telangana and the Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department. The respondents were instructed to decide on the representation within four weeks in accordance with the law. The court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim.

Additionally, the court ordered that any pending interlocutory applications in the case would stand closed. The order explicitly stated that no costs were awarded in the case.

Case Title: Gavinolla Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana
Case Number: Writ Petition (PIL) No. 5 of 2025
Bench: Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul, Justice Renuka Yara

[Read/Download order]