WRIT PETITION NO: 1384 OF 2023 v. par regularized the

Judgment

4. State of Telangana , Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, BRK Bhavan, Hyderabad. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Dept, Secretariat, BRK Bhavan, Hyderabad. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Dept, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad. The Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Dept, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Kamareddy District. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, tVedak District. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Siddipet District. 7 The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Kamareddy District. BI The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Medak District. 'l0.The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Siddipet District. 1 1 . The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Pitlam Mandal, Kamareddy 12. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Shankarampet (A) Mandal, District. 5 C) Medak District.

13.The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Narsapur Mandal, Medak District. '14. The tt/andal Parishad Development Officer, Chinnakodur Mandal, Siddipet District. 1 5. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Siddipet tvlandal, Siddipet District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Coud may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction or more particL I of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents it services of the petitioners in terms of the Hon'ble Suprem: not regularizing the services of the petitioners on parc service of one of the members of the union Sri. iVld. iv lVlechanic (Hand Pump lt,4echanic), working at Both, Ad I G.O.Rt No.182, Dtd.l4.03.2017 as illegal, arbitrary, high unfair, unreasonable, irrational, uncon stitutio nal, unlawf r Articles 14, 16, 19,21 and 23 of the Constitution of lndia Principles of Natural Justice and against to a catena of ,J Court and set aside the same and consequently direr; regularize the services of the petitioners in purview of the . rrly one in the Nature ro n-reg u larizing the Courl judgments and par regularized the asood Ali, Bore well lbao District through iscriminatory, unjust, and in violatio n of rnd in violation of the dgments of an Apex the respondents to rdgments of an Apex Court with consequential benefits lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the c i cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in dupport of the petition, the High CoLr t may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the salaries to the petiti ; rers in terms of the Judgment of an Apex Court in the case of State of Punjzrl Vs Jagjit Singh and others, (C.A.No.213 of 2013 and its batch), Dtd .26.10.21l6 forthwith, pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. PRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: AGP FOR GENERAL A )MINISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2to4, 8to10: GP FOR SE:l IVICES ll Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5to7, 'l1to15: SRI R. Ctl, rNDRA SHEKAR, SC The Court made the following: ORDER S \.'.J wP 1384 201-l HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.1384 OF 2023 ORDER Heard Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for General Administration appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Services-Il appearing on behalf of respondent Nos, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9 and 10 and Sri R.Chandra Shekar, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 5, to 7, 11 to 15. 2 Thp netit tonerq ann roach ed thisCorrrt seckino the D!:aver as under:

"...to issue an order or direction more particularly one rn the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in non-regularizing the services of the petitioners in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments and not regularizing the services of the petitioners on par at par regularized the service of one of lhe members of the union Sri Md. Masood Ali, Bore well Mechanic (Hand Pump Mechanic), working at Both, Adilabad District through G.O.Rt.No.182, Dtd: 14.O3.2017 as illegal, arbitrary, high discriminatory, unjust, unfair, unreasonable, irrational, unconstitutional, unlawful and in violation of Articles ),4, L6, L9, 27 and 23 of the Constitution of India and in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and 4 S\..I \\P ltsl l0l3 against to a catena of Judgments ofan Apex Crr rt and set aside the samc and consequently direct the respond l ris to regularize the servri.es of the petitroners in purvrew of the udgments of an Apex Court with consequential benefits and ; ass such other order..."

3. Learned counsel appearinq on b,r half of the etitioners la cin reli nce on h V rm t i made in the fti avit filed in su ort of erta in in a rti r h h r n writ petition es rendered bv Detitioners with the respondents herein for more than a de ade contends tha e r titled for the relief as Draved for in the present writ oetiti(I 1. PERUSED THE RECORD:. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- 4, Learn ed counsel aDDearino on b half of the ( oetitioner submits that the subiect issue i1 the oresent r

08. 9.2010 assed i t his Court, dated Cr'' reDorted in 2011(1) ALD, Paoe 34 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O, dated 10.06.201 3 and also order, dat(t I 19.O9.2OL7 oassed in W.P.No.2721 7 of 2OL7 reoorted in :018 (2) ALD ) SN.J wP 1384 2021 Paoe 282 and also the order, dated 2L o4.2020 asD sed in w.P.No.2 3O57 of 2019 reoorted in 202O 4 ) ALD Pa e37 o (

5. Learned stan dinq counsel appearinq on behalf of the respon d e t Nos.5 to 7, 1 1 to 15 submits that the o rreva n Ce of the Detiti ner as D Petition had not been addressed to the resDondents n the D resent W o ut-f o hi r t herein as on date and therefore, the oetitioners ca nnot complain inaction on the o rt of resoondents herein in consid eri o the orievance o the Detitioners a nd hence, the relief as oraved for bv t e oetitioners in t e oresent itio n cannot be qranted a nd no Mandamus can be issued aoainst the resoondents hereunder as sou o htf or and the Detitioners mav be d irected to Dut-forth the Detitioners' orlevance as D t-forth in the oresent Writ Petition bv wav of a detailed reDresentation to the resoondents herein and u n receiot of the sa id Do reD resentation. the resoonden ts would consider the same in accordan to law. within a reasonable period. 6 Lea rn ed ounsel aooearinq on behalf of the Detitioners does n t disoute the said submission ma de bv the learn ed 6 SN.J \r P l]8] totl standinq counsel appeaflnq on behalf of t re reso o n dent Nos.5 to 7, 11 to 15. 7, The Apex Court in the iudo ment report td in (2 020) 1 L&S) in Prem Sinoh v State of Utta Pr esh an ccS ( others, at para 36 held a s under: "36. There are some of the employees who i-i ve not been ,ices for 30- regulartzed in spite of having rendered the ser 40 or more years whereas they have been sr.. p erannuated, As they have worked in the work-charged es .ablishment, not against any particular project, their servir es ought to have been regularized under the Government instru ctio n s and even as per the decision of this Cour. in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the sa id decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the :ove r of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the ;erv ces be regularized of such employees. In the facts f the case, those employees who have worked for ten y: )rs or more should have been regularized. It would not t : proper to regulate them for consideration of regularizat ( n as others have oeen regularized, we direct that their ; erv ices be treated as a regular one. However, it is ma,i ) clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues, f d ilference in wages had they been continued in servi e regu larly before attaining the age of superannuation. I ey shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they h ve retired from he reoular esta bl ish men t and tl 1l services re nd ered bv them rioht from the av tf ! v entered the work-charoed establishment shall be o unted as o ua lifvlno servtce for ouroose of o nsion.'

8. The A ex Court in the case of Dharwarl Distri t PWD Literate Dailv Waqe Emolovees Associatiorl Vs, State of Ka rn ata ka reported in 1990(2) SCC Paqe 39, J laid orin cip le that he State hould not keep a o erson in temoor arv or 7 SN,J wP 138.1 2023 adhoc servace for lono Deriod and have to treat such Dersons as reoular one.

9. Para No.53 of the of the iud o men tof he Aoex Court t in the State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma d evi. dated 1O.04.2006 reDorted in (2 06) 4 SCC 1is extracted hereunder:- a R. L2 Nan unda "53. One aspe ct needs to be clarified. There mav be cases where irreqular aooointments (not illeqal aooointments) as explai ed in S,V. Naravanaooa t972 1 t967 1 SCC 409'l and B.N. Naqaraian 11979 (4) SCC 5O7l and referred to in Dara 15 above. of dulv oualified Dersons in dulv sanctione vacant oosts miqht have been made and the emp lovees have continued to work for ten vears or more but .without the intervention of orders of h e courts or of tribunals, The ouestaon of reqularization of the services of such emolovees mav have to be considered on merits in L ht.r f h lcrt flncl nles settled hrr flri< f nrrrt t t h tn tha nd in the lioht of this cases abovereferred to iudqment. In that context, the U naon of India, the their in stru me nta lities State Governments and should take steos to reqularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irreqularlv aooointed, sa n cti oned Dosts but not u der cover o orde rs of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that reoular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned Dosts t at reouire to be filled uo, in cases where temDorarv emolovees or dailv waqers are beinq now emDloyed. The orocess must be set in motion within six mo ths from this date. have worked fo I r h

10. The iudqment of the Apex Court dated 20. L2.2024. reoorted i 2 24 LawSuit(SC) 1209 in Jaoso Anita and 8 SN,.I wP lilJ4 2021 a others v. Uni of India and oth rs, ard the relevant Da ra raph Nos.12, 13, 24, 26, 27 and 2{ are extracte d o bereulldcIi "12. Despite being labelled os ,,pr; rrt-time workers," the appellants performer these essential tasks on a daily and co n tinuous basis over extensive periods, rangir g from over a decade to nearly two decadr:;. Their engagement was not sporadic or ter lporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, egular, and akin to the responsibilities t rpically associated with sanctioned posts. Mc reover, the respondents did not engage an,, other personnel for these tasks durir g the appellants tenure, underscorin,; the indispensable nature of their work. . The necessitates The claim bv the resoonder 13. 1 :s that t hese we re not reoular oosts Iacks n ! :rit. as the natu re of the work oerfo rmed _ bv the ADDellan ts was oerennial and fundam 5 ntal to he fu ction in -:curring h nature of these duties th eir classification as regular posts, irrespectiv,: of how their initial engagements were labelled. lt is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing r f these sa me tasks to private agencies af t _.r the appellants' termination demonstrates the i therent need for these services. This act of out:i( urcing, which effectively replaced one set of worl. t rs with another further underscores that the v ork in question was neither temporary nor occasi: ral. 24. The landmark judgment of the Unit: j State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corpora t on [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a t,( rtinent example from the private sector, illustrat rg the consequences of misclassifying emplol,r es to circumvent providing benefits. In thir; case, Microsoft classified certain workers as inder indent \ \ 9 SN.J u1P ri8l l02l contractors/ thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same beneFits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means ol avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that ihe nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It hiohliohts the iudiciarv's role in rectifvinq such misclassificatto ns and ensurinq that workers receive fa ir treatm e nt, 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" appointments. It cateqoricallv held that emplovees in irreo u la ra pointments, who were enqaqed in continuouslv for more than ten vears should be considered for reqularization as a one- time measure. However , the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to ind iscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, judgment's explicit overlooking the acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selectiv eat) olica on distorts the iudqment's spirit and ourpose, effectively ''irregular" I l0 SN, ] \\ I' l38l toli weaDonizino it aoainst em D ovees whrr have rendered indispensable services d eca d es.

27. In light of these considerations, n our opinion, it is imperative for govcr rment departments to lead by example in pro,rid rg falr and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, es: :cially when their roles are integral to the organi.l rtion's functionrng, not only contravenes interrr, tional labour standards but also exposes the orgarr zation to legal challenges and undermines em p loyee morale. By ensuring fair emplol ment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litiq ttion, promote job security, and upholrl the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach irligns with international standards and s( ts a positive precedent for the private sec I or to follow, thereby contributing to the <l rerall betterment of labour practices in the coi ntry.

28. In view of the above discussio r and findings, the appeals are allowed. The inrrr rgned orders passed by the High Court and the Tr bunal are set aside and the original application is.r owed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 . l0.20lB are quashed ; ii, The appellants shall be aken bae k on duty forthwith and their services reqularised fortl'with. However, the a pellants shall rr rt be entitled pec p niarv benefits/back waqes for the p eriod thev have not worked for but r rould be entitled to continuitv of ser vices for the said period and the ;ame b _ oost- retiral jenefitg- anY f \ ) II SN,J wP Dlt4 2021

11. The Judoment of the ADex Court dated 31.01.2025 reD orted in 2025 INSC L44 in'SHRIPAL A D ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD,,, in paTticula e relevant oara Nos.15 to 19 a re extracted hereunder: f h n It is man est t that the ADDellant Workmen " 15. continuouslv rendered their services over several ea rs sometimes s anntn mo Even if certain muster rolls were not Droduced in full, the Emolover's failure to furnish such records- so-allows an adverse desoite direc tonstod ell-established labour inference iurisorudence. Indian labour law stronqlv disfavors oerpetual dally-Waqe ot contractual enqaqements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and leqallv, workers who fulfil onqoinq municipal reouirements vear after vear cannot be dismissed summarily as disDensable, particularlv in the absence of a qenuine contractor aoreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts/ as exemplified in this case, reFlects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an ) s\.1 u'P Ii81 l0l_1 increase in preca rious employment often characterized by lack of benef t and fair treatment. Such practlc€ criticized for exploiting workers a'r labour standards, Government inst tr t rruith upholdrng the principles of fairnr bear an even greater responsibility eiploitative employment practices sector entities engage in misusc contracts, it not only mirrors the de.r observed in the gig economy bt t concerning precedent that can erode l govern mental operation s, a rra ng ements, ;, job security, s have been 1 u ndermin ing ons, entrusted is and j u stice, to avoid such When public of tem pora ry mental trends a Iso sets a r blic trust in

25. It is a disconcerting reality . at temporary employees, particularly in governmr: tt ilstitutions, often face multifaceted forms of expr titation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or ;:asonal needs, they have increasingly become a mecl anism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-t,l'm obligations owed to employees. These practic: I manifest in several ways: o M isuse of "Temporarv" Labels: EmDlovees enqaqed for work that is essenti rl, recurrtnq, and anteqral to the functioninq of , rn institution labelled as "ter porarY" or are often "contractua1," even when their roles mirror those of reqular emolo, I Such m iscla ssifica tion deorives worl( secu ritv, and benefits _ :hat req u la r d io n itv, emolov ees are entitle d to. desoi: : oerfor mrnq id n ical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary t mployees are frequently dismissed without cause or i otice, as seen in the present case. This practice r. r dermines the principles of natural justice and subje(:1 ; workers to a state oF constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. . L::k of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportu r ties for skill development, promotions, or increme -t al pay raises. o I \ \ 1l SN,J wP li 84 2023 They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally sig nificant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate efFort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are oFten denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack oF social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circu msta nces. "

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-enqagement on daily wages with some measure of pariiy in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record. L7. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without l.+ S\..I u,r, lt84 201:t n I budqet adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of th : U. p. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev we1 e enoao ed in essential ,o erennial d uties, th ese wol ers cannotbe re leqated to e rpet ua I uncertain tv. '/ hile concerns of municioal conr rlian ce with recruitmen t rules erit co nstderation.;u ch concerns do not a bsolvethe Emplov er of statut rv obli q ations Indeed, bureaucratic li m itations ca n not trump he leqitima te riqhts of workmen who have served < rntinuousl vtn de facto reqU lar roles for an extended p eriod. e ntatlem e r ts. eq u ita ble neqate i ( 18 The i mDuone d order of the Hiqh Court, to the extent th confine the A D oe lla nt Worl( nen to future dail y-waqe enqa ement without meanin qfu I back waqes, is herebv set side w th th t c )ntin u itv !re ns: i. The discontinuation of the Appei , nt Workmen,s services, effected without compliance ,rith Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.p. Industrii) Disputes Act, 7947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their serv,ces are quashed. In consequence, the Appe ant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in s()i vice From the date of their termination, for all pui-gr ,ses, inclu d tng seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shal Appella nt Workmen in their respe( t posts akin to the duties they previoL: within four weeks from the date of t Their entire eriod of absence (frc I term i n ation ntil act al rein atenl cou nted for I reinstate the ve posts (or ly performed) ris judgment. r the date of shall be and all of ser\ c contin u itv l5 SN,J wP t38.1 202i conseouential benefits. such as senioritv a nd eliq ibilitv for Dr motions, if anv. ilL Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within Lhree months from the date of their reinstatement. IV. The ResDondent Emolover is directed to initiate a fair and transDarent rocess for req u la ri zi nq the Aooellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstat ment, dulv considerinq the fact that thev have oerformed erennial munici al d rtosts Emolover shall not ampose educational or ere never aoDlied to the reouirements Aooellant Workmen or to similarl V situ ated n kin to re attt a rizatio n ral criteria re r a ssess r n ?t In n ite all nece h or are reouired the Resoondent Em lo to ensure these lonotime emplov es are not indefinitetv reta ined on dailv waoes contra rv to statutor and ouitab e norms. e D ver shall in istrative lar em lo sa n ctione ast. T for such

19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed."

12. The Apex Cou rt in a iudqment reported in (20L7) L Suoreme Court Cases 148, in State of Puniab a nd others vs Jaqiit inoh and others at Paras 54 and its sub-paras 1 of th aid ud men e s unde l6 SN'-..1 \\ P t-r ll.1 20:l "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, / upon the above controversy had concludec. employees vtere not entitled to the minimum ( I scale, nte;ely for the reason, that the acttvtil dally-vtaqers and regular employees were si-t1t t however, na,7e two exceptions. Temporary ert in eithet of the two exceptions, were held e1', the minimunt of the pay-scale drawn by regul, t exceptians recorded by the full bench of the L impugnt:d ludgment are extracted hereunder: h ile adjudicating that temporary the regular pay- s carried on by .. T\e fu ll bench )ioyees, who iell led to wages at emDloyees. The ;g h Cou rt in the "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or cont, ctuai appointee agatnst the regular sanctioned posts, t appointed after undergoing a selection process based t,1 on fairness anc| equaltty of opportunity to all other el r ible candidates, shatt be entitled to minimum of the regJ t. pay scate front the date of engagement. a E B if dail ers ad ,r contractua I re ular 2 a DDoin tees are not aDDointed a atn sanctioned oosts and their servic are availe continuouslv. with notiona I breaks bv the State Government or its instrumenta lities . or a sufficient lono period i.e. for 70 vears, such dg ilv wao ers, ad hoc or contractual aooointees shalr be entitled to minimum of the reqular oa v sca l( without anv the assum tion allowances on ork of peren n ia I nature is available and hav no worked for such lonq oeriod of time, an eqtr, table riqht is created in such ca teoorv of oe rsons. 'heir cl, if anv. mav have to 5e considered reqularization seoaratelv in terms of leoally oermis:;_ ble schem e, ( 3 ) In the event, a claim is made for nt . mun pay scale after more than three years anC t vo months of completion of 10 years of continuous v orkrnq, a daily vrager, ad hoc or contractual employee st ,lt be enti ed to arrears for a period of three years and t'^c moaths.,, \a ! I

13. The iu dqment of the Aoex Cou rt reDort e d in 201O(9) scc 247 between: State of Karnataka :r rd others v M.L.Kesari nd others, in Darticular, Da ras 4 o 9 reads as a \ )1 SN,J wP r384 2023

4. The decision in State of Karna taka v. Umadevi was rendered on 10.4.2006 (reDorted in 2006 (4) SCC 7). In that case, a n Bench of this Court held that appointments made C n without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re- engagement nor make their servtce permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner/ in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instru mentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below ; "53. One asDect needs to be clarified, There mav be cases where irreoular a DDotn tments (not illeaal e as ex lained in S.V. Nara 7 N. nd B.N. Na ara an 7979 4 scc 7967 C,^f dnol ^ and referred to in Dara 7 5 above. of dulv oualified r*t iahi h av d ersons in dul work for ten vears or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. and the em lo ees have co ti. ^^<;< ,-2n? 72 estion of ularization of the I Ies se in the li ht of the rtncl such emalovees mav ha ve to be considered on , Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the lioht the Un India, the State G vernments and instru mentalities should t'ake steas to redularize as measu re the service of su aDDointed. who have wo ed for ten vears or more osts but ment. In th t contex r L ctioned e courts or of tribu undertaken to fill those f temDorarv emolovees or dailv waoers are beino cant sanctioned oosts uire to be lled u r recruitmen l8 S\..I \\ P I l8l 2,)ll .) now emDloved. The Drocess must b< set in motion within six months from this date, .,., ''5. It is evident from the above that the - is an exceptton to the general principles against regularizatt ; t' etunciated tn Umadevi, if the follovring conditions are fulfillec (i) The employee concerned sltould have wort<,,r for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the bene|i or protection of the interint order of any court or tnbunal. It ther words, the State Go,/ernment or its instrumentality shou,: hav,e employed the employee and continued him in servrct t,oluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (it) The appointment of such employee shoL ( even if irreqular. Where the appointments ,,, continued against sanctioned posts or v'',,) ) appointed da not possess the prescribed ntinir"," the appaintments t//ill be considered to be illeg a person employed possessed the prescribed ,t was working aqainst sanctioned posts. but h) wrthout undergoing the process of open conli), such appointments are considered to be irrequl,t not be illegal, : nct made or e the persoqs n q ualifica tions, . But where the alifications and I been selected titive selection, :l ( iii) Umade vi casts a dutv ,rDon r e concerned Government or instrume litv, to ta ke sfeps to n reqularize the services of those irreou,t rlv aoooin ted emplovees who had served for more ll a n without the benefit or oro tection of anv in I trim orders of courts or tribunals. as a one-time mea.; tre. Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure nt ,st be set in motion within six m onths from the date tf its ectston (rendered o

70.4.2006). n

6. The term ' one-time measure' has to be . i proper perspective. This would normally mear decision in Umadevi, each department or eacl should undertake a one-time exercise and pres casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who lt. \ for more than ten years without the intervent,. tribunals and subject them to a process v? whether they are working against vacant posts, requisite qualification for the post and if so, services. derstood in its that after the instrumentaltty a re a list of all e been working -t of courts and 'ification as to nd possess the -egularize their

7. At the end of six months from the dat,: of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hocic e ;ual employees were still pending before Courts. Conse., ent'y, several \ l9 SN,J wP 13 84 2023 departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instru menta lities undertook the one-ttme exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in Umadevr, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily' wa g e/ad hoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of l.Jmadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered. 8. The o iect behind the s d direction in Dara 53 of , Umadevi is two- fold. First rc fo ensure .that those who have Dut in more than ten vears of contin uous servtce without the Drotection of an v interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for reoularizati on in view of e erD etuate the de a rtmen t< /instru mentalities donotD D Dractice of emDlovinq D ersons on dailv-waoe / ad- lono oeriods and then oeriodicallv hoc/casual for reqularize them on the qround that t ve served for more tha ten vears, therebv defeatino the constitutiona I r statuto aDDointment, The true effect of the direction is that all o have worked for more than ten rs as on Dersons 70.4.2006 (th date of decision in Umadevi) without the rotection of c lification, are vacant Dosts, Dossessinq the requisite entitled to be considered for reoularization. Th fact that he em lo underta x months e taken onlv in Umadevi or that such exercise was un sen title such limited few, will not reoard to a emolovees, the rioht to be considered fot requla rization lon ose rvice, Seco n la za on wtthi erim order of to ensure rt or tribun ent a relatin s, n ,s , 20 SN,.I wP riE4 20ll in terms of the above directions in Um adevi as a one-time measure.

9. These appeals have been pending for more han four years after the decisiori in Umadevi. The Appellant (7-ila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases oi espandents of regulanzation withtn six months of the decisior rn Umadevi or the rea fte r.

10. The Divlsion Bench of the High Court has ) cases of respondents should be considered in , law. The only further direction that needs be l Umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gace undertake an exercise within stx months, a q,: regularization exerose. to find out whether tht't wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila i so whether such employees (including the re; the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umattr them, their services have to be regularized. Ir s has already been undertaken by ignoring or o;r of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendenc., then their cases shall have to be considered i,t the said one time exercise within three months say that if the respondents do not fulfill the , Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not r'( the employees who have completed ten year; possess the educational qualifications prescribe 1 the time of their appointment, they may ot: regularization in suitable lower posts. This appc, accordlngly. rected that the ccordance with ten, in view of 1 should now ,eral one time = are any darly anchayat and rf rcndents) fu lfill vi. If they fu lfill tch an exercise tting the cases of these cases, continuation of t is needless to 2qu irements of regularised. If service do not for the post, at considered for lis disposed of L4. In the iudqment of the ADex Court ir Nihal Sinqh and others v. State of Puniab reported in ( 2 013) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case c F absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the itate, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose d sposal their services were made available. It held that t re mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did nr): render the l \ 2,1 SN,J wP D8l 2023 appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authority of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractual It also refused to relationship, its action is arbitrary. acceDt the defence that there were no sa nctioned oosts and so there was iustification for the State to utilise n se rvt ces of lar e number of ne o Dle like the a nDe e nts for decades. It he ld that "sanctioned posts do. not fall from heaven" and that the Stat has to create them bva T cdnscious choice on the basis of some ratio al assessment of need. Referrinq to Umade vi. it held that the ooella nts before them were not arbitrarilv chosen, their initial aDoointment was not an'irreqular' appoint ment as it had been made in acco rdance wath the statu orv orocedure p rescribed under the Police Act. 1861, and the State r^r tt .rt be heard to n caw t hat the a n t ent ladfaha a bso rbed into the services of the State on permanent basis as, accordinq to it, their a DD ol ntments w re ourelv .) SN.] \\/P li s4 2021 temporarv and not a ainst anv sanctioned E osts created bvt he State. It was held that the iudqmerrt in Umadevi cannot become a licence for exploitation bv t re State a nd its instrumentalities and neither the Gc ernment of ,] Puniab nor those public sector Banks can cor Dractice inconsistent with their obliqation 1:r function in accordance with the Con stitution.

15. The iud qment of the Aoex Court re p(L te in 2O15 SCC Online SC 1797 between B.Srinivasulu rn others v Nellore Municipal Corooration Reo. bv its (,r mmissioner, Nellore District, Andhra Prades h and others . in oarticular Daras 7 and 8 reads as und er: We find it Court. The ri cult to acceDt the re d SO D tl-1'la do ted b qht of the apeeuants to se? : r, (7) Hiqh la riza t io n flows fr,o m the G.o. No.212 dated 22.4.199t Th e-_n-ppelldrt have been in 5qrvice of the first resDondent no!l nly prior to the t to the tssue of issuance_ of th l lpiOy. The respondent Municipality te ng a statutory body is oblrged by the G.O. 212(supra). Insp,t: of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for,lmost 20 years without regularising the servtce of the appetlart: and continued to extract work from the appellants. e5 aid G.O. but even su bsequen .o. til In the circumstances, refusing the bend t of the above 8. mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appel .1ts approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not , rstified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying he order under appeal by directing that the appellants' servict,: be regutarised with effect from the date of their completin! their five year continuous service as was laid down by this ( aurt in District Collector/Chair person & Others vs. M.L. Singh I Ors, 2009 (B) SCC 4BO. ) ) 2i SN,J wP ll81 2023

16. In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar reDorted (2015) 8 SCC 265. the Su Dreme Court held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensu re securitv of emolovm nt of those Dersons who had served the State Government and their in stru m entalities for more than ten In that case, em olovee was worki nq for 2 vea rs". This deci s on aooroves e a rlier view expressed in vea rs. M.L.Kesari ex racted above.

17. In State of larkhand v Kamal Prasad re orted in 7 20L4 c 223 Suprem e Court and it was h eldasf !lows vtew w t ken b h "47,... In view of the catesorica I findinq of fact on the ntentious issue that the resoondent emolovees relevant havel nti nued in their service for more than 7 O vears the leoal o nciole laid downbv continuouslv therefo this Court in Umadevi case ( tate of Karnataka v Umadevi a oolies to the Drese t ce-ses of the Hiah Court has riohtlv soondent emolovees are entitled for t e relief. the same cannot be 3 at ara The Division Ben red with bv this Court." eld that the 6 4 SCC o 6 SCC n

18. The Judgment of this Court dated 06.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.276O2 of 2019 which pertains to { SN,J wP Lt I.i4 2023 regula rization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshr ri Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda Di;trict, which had been upheld by the Division Benctr of this Court in W.A.No.937 ot 2023 dated 1O.1O.2( 23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex lourt dated

09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 ol 2024.

19. The i ud o ment of the Aoex Court in H iK ishna Mandir Tru st V. State of Ma h rashtra and O'l l a r re o rted tn AIR 2020 S u D reme Court 3969 and in o; r Nos.1OO and 101 held as follows: "100. The High Courts exercising their lu- rJ iction u nder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, nci on ly have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or rl the nature of mandamus, but are dutv-bound to rercise such DOWer. w here the Governm ent or a ot rli aut has failed to exercise or has wronc lv exercised discretion conferred upon it bv a statutg or a rule, or a policv decision of the Government or.j as exe rcised t irrelevant cons ad era tion. d isc retion mala fide. or ()

101. In all such cases, the High Court mus. rssue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel lerformance in an appropriate and lawful manner of he discretion conterred upon the Government or a publir: e .lthority.,,

20. The Division Bench of this Cou rt in Jud men dated 10. O6.2013 oassed in W.A.No s.782 of 01O and 854 of 2OL2 while uoholdin q the Judomen t dat(: I O8.O .2010 \ t 25 SN.J wP 13 81 202i passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2008 observed as under:- "Further, it is manifest from the material on record that the services of the similarly placed persons who approached the law Courts were regularized. The appellant-Corporation also issued various office orders/circulars dated 20,12.1989, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and Iatest being 4.7.2009 for regularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25- T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for such a long and continuous period of tlme on casual basis is nothing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of Section 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying on the decisions oF the Apex Court, rightly held that the respondents are entitled to regularization as directed in the impugned orders, as the learned single .Judge consrdered all the aspects of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interlerelce in tnese appeals." 2L. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment dated L9.O9.2OL7 Dassed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2Ol7 reported in 2018(2)ALD paqe 282 at para 16 and para 18 observed as under:- '16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 7994 and G.O. lvls. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time absorption/regularization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O. lYs. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, while giving directions in 26 S\.J u P r.ls.+ l02l Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's r.', se (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of rre States where State enactments banning reguiarization/;rlsorption exist. Therefore Act 2 of 19 94 and c.O. Ms. _ !o.212, dated g idth and the 22.4.L994. do not whittle down the iudqment in Maniula Bashini's case (st lower the traiectorv of the directions ssued by the Suoreme Court in Para 53 of its iudqmen I in Uma Devi's r ssible for the resoondents to take shelter under Act 2 o 1994 and G.O. t Ms. No.21 2, dated 22.4.19 94 to denv rc ul rization to the oetitioners, who have, admittedlv satisfi ed the criteria laid down in Pa ra No.53 of the iu ment in Uma Deyi's case (supra ). therefore does n su ra I a n J e

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, : )ied Zl .6.2oll , in OA No. 1442 of 2074 , on the file of the Trrlrr na I is set aslde and the writ petition is allowed with the 1 r tion to th resDondents to consider reo u la risation of the servi ces of the petitioner s aqainst the existinq vacir rcies of Work InsDectors and aoooint them ubiect to reir satisf t la id down in Para No.53 of t1 the criteri ud ment in Uma Devi's case (suDra). This D rocess mu! be comDleted n two months from the d te of rece tofa coov of this order." I

22. The Division Bench of this Court in ts Judqment t2 19 dated 2 1.O4.2O2O oassed in I.A.No s.1 of 2O2( in 1 and w. P.No.23O5 7 ot 2Ot9 reDorte d in 2O2( (4)ALD Daqe 379 at aras 45, 48 and Dara 50 observed as rnder:- "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have t :en working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almcs (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimunt :ime-scale lrom the year 2000. They have been continuously ./orking without any Court orders in their Favour from 1990 till d3 e. 48. rt is not known whv the lst resDol t has not (suora ), as exDlained in M.L. Kesa ri's case (suora) an under aken a one-t ime exercrse of DreDarino the list f dailv wage emolovees who had worked for mo re tha n en (1O) years -ibunals as on ut the interve ntion of the Courts and 10.4.2 O6 and subie if ication as to CeSS vr in Uma Devi' them to a or il w i l e I ^ \ 27 SN.J wP t381 :0ti whether thev are workino aqainst vacant posts and e ualifica to sf r and if req ularize their services.

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20,8.2019 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization oF services on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 oF the Constitution of India; the resoondents are directed to reqularize on one-time basis oetitioners' services from the date each of the oetitioners com olete 1 Ovears of service on dailv waqes from the initial dates of their aoooin ment. But, thev shall not be f.r anv rri.rrratarv raliaf Tha <rid avarrica chall ha FntitlF.l done within two (2) weeks from the date of receiot of coDv of the order. "

23. This Court opines that in the Dresent case, the relpondents failed to discharqe their duty in examininq the request of the petitioners for reqularization of servr ces who are workin as. H dP Mechanics and further to consider their req_uest to treat the temDorary service of the Detitioners in the last qrade r r s orade oav with oeriodical in re mentre vised from tirne to time from the date of aoDointment of the oetitioner, in accordance to law. 24, This Court oDines that petitioners are entitled for consideration of petitioners case for orant of the relief as ra ed for in th resent Writ Petition an vi SN..I wP 116 I 1023 observ tion s of the Aoex Cou rt in variou; iud ments (referred to and extracted above) and thr: view of th e Division Bench of thi s Cou rt in the Judqmerl; referred to and extracted a bove.

25. Takinq into con s idera tio n: - a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances (,1 the case. b) The submissions made by the lea r red counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and lear red standing counsel appearing on behalf of the responderr Nos.4 & 5 c) The observations of the Apex Court ir the various judgments (referred to and extracted aborr ) and again enlisted below: i)(2020) 1 SCC (L&S) (ii) 1990(2) ScC page 396 (iii) 2025 rNSC 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) l Scc 148 (vi) 2O1o(9) s0c 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Ontine SC 1797 (ix) (2o1s) I sCC 26s (x) (2014) 7 Scc223 (xi) SLP No.32841 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, page234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(a)ALD page 379 SN,J u'P 1381 202i d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 ot 2O1O and 854 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment dated 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2008 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated

19.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.272l7 ol 2017 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4,2O2O passed in t.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2Ot9 (referred to and extracted above). g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order. Tlra Writ Petition is allow otl directed to Dut-fortht he claim of the tha na t + ners ar etitio n e rs for reoularization of De titioners services, and also the claim of the oetitioners to treat the temDorarv ervtces of the Detitaoners in the Iast q rade oosts as reqular one for all pu rposes bv qrantinq last orade Dav with oeriod ica I increments revised from time to time from the date of 30 SN,J \vP ti8.+ 2023 o appointment of the petitioners and all I onseouential benefits, dulv enclosinq all the relevant c ocuments in support of petitioners case as put-forth in th( present writ petition, within a p of one (O1) week f r :m the date of receipt of coov of the order and the res rr rndents shall on receipt of the same examine and considr: the same in c r n conformi with flncr r es of natu ral iustiee by providinq an opportunity of Dersor al hearinq to the petitioners. in terms of orders passed b\l the Supreme Court in Um a Devi's case reported in 20O6(4 SCC Paqe 1, the iudqment oassed in W.P.No.24377 o 2OO7 dated 08.09.201O reoorted in 2O11 (1) ALD, Paqe 234 and as confirmed in W.A.N 7 2 2O1O dated 1O. )6.2013 and also as oer Division Bench Judqment of this Court dated

19.09.2017 oassed in W. P.N o.272t7 of 2OCr' reDorted in 2018(2)ALD paqe 2A2 and also the Dir ision Bench Judoment of this Court dated 2L.O4.2Oil_ ) oassed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 in W.P.No.2:057 of 2O19 reported in 2O2O(4)ALD oaqe 379 which rad attained finalitv, within a period of four (O4) weeks I 'om the date of recet Dt of a coov of th order. dulv takinq into s co nsi d rat on the o bs ervati ons and the law aid down bv \ 3l SN.J wP I:t 84 202i the Aoex Cou rt in the various iudom ents (referred to and extracted above). andin n rt CU a r na a No-53 o the the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v Uma Devi and dulv co municate the decision to th etitioners. However, there shall be no iudqment of e D f f order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER One fair copy to THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTTCE S (For Herlordship's Kind Perusal EPALLI NANDA I oT I Nagar, Hyderabad. Affairs, New Delhi. Buildings, Hyderabad Erramanzil, Hyderabad. Secretariat, BRK Bhavan, Hyderabad.

1. 1'l L.R. Copies. 2. The Under S^ec1elary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company 3. The .. Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court 4. The Chief Secretary, Secretariat, BRK Bhavan. Hvderabad. 5. The Principal .Secretary,. .Panchayat Raj and' Rural Development Dept, 6. The Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Dept, Himayath 7 The Engineeiln-Chief, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Dept, 8. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Kamareddy District. 9. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja parishad, Medak Disirict. 10.The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja parishad, Siddipet District. 1 1 . The District Panchayat Rai Officer, Kamareddv District.' '12.The District Panchayat Raj Oficer, Medak Disirict. 'l3.The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Siddipet District. '14. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, pitlam Mandal, Kamareddy 1 5. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Shankarampet (A) Mandal, '16.The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Narsapur Mandal, Medak District. 1 7. The Mandal Parishad Deveiopment Officer, Chihnakodur Mandal, Siddipet Medak District. District. Diskict.

18.The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Siddipet Mandal, Siddipet District. 19.Two CCs to CC rODAY FOR GENERAL ADMTNTSTRATION, High Court for 20.One CC to SRI. P-RABHAKAR CHIKKiJDU.,Advocate toPUCI the State of Telanoana. at Hvderabad IOUTI 21 Two CCs to CC TOD, tfi3t'S[;,*;r,,mfff:j=ilI|.111,ff, ,,u., i.r he s,a,e . rLr*n' -rANrrrNG o )UNSEL foPucj Sy" Wt I I HIGH COURT DATED:1910812025 CC TODAY ( I S TA t', lJ?i 1 I I ]A {] * o t * \ ( a ORDER WP.No.1384 ot 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITI.I )UT COSTS (1 b6 l?