Writ Petition No. 3945 of 2023 · The High Court · 2025

6. Learned counsel aDDearinq on behalf cl the petitioner does not dispute the;aid submission madr. t lea rn ed standinq counsel aDDearinq on behalf of tl e respondent Nos.4 and 6.

7. The Apex Court in the iudqment reDort:d in (2O2O) 1 SCC (L&S) in Prem Sinqh v State of Uttir Pradesh and others, at Dara 36 held as under: s "36. There are some of the employees who I z ve not been ,ices for 30- regularized in spite of having rendered the ser 40 or more years whereas they have been st I € rannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged es :ablishment, not against any particular project, their serv r es ought to have been regularized under the Governmert in structio ns in State of and even as per the decision of this Cour, ln the said Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court decision has laid down that in case servic€ have been rendered for more than ten years without th( :cver of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the ;ervices be regularized of such employees. In the facts )1' the case, lrs or more those employees who have worked for ten ye should have been regularized. It would not t e proper to regulate them for consideration of regularizati n as others have been regularized, we direct that thelr services be r clear tha t treated as a regular one. However, it is ma a they shall not be entitled to claiming any due: r'' d iFference in wages had they been continued in ser\ i :e regu larly before attaining the age of superannuation. - rr:y shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they !! rve retired from the requ lar establishment and th 3S rendered bv them riqht from the dav tl1:v entered the work-charqed establishmeotshall be :ounted as .ltta ifrrinrr carrrieo frrr nrrrnnca nf noncian ' ...-,/ ,/ 7 SN,J wp 3945_2021 8 The Aoex Court in the case of Dh arwad District PWD Literat Dailv Waoe Emolovees Association Vs. State of Ka rnat ka re D o rted in 990 1 ( 2 't scc p oe3 a 9 6 laid n o e that the State should not keep a Derson in temporarv or hoc servi r lon f and h v oersons as reqular one.

9. Para No.53 o f the of th iudoment of the Aoex Court in the State of Karnataka and othe Vs. Umadevi, dated 10.o4.2OO6 reoorted in ( 2006) 4 SCClisex tracted hereunder:- 72 scR 1 "s3. one asrtectn ds to tre clarifi ed The re ma v ?re cases where irre ular aooointments (not illeoal aDoorn tments) as exolained in S.V. Narav NADDA R.N. N 19 7 1 scc 4O9'l and B.N. Naoaraian I 1979 (41 Scc so7] and referred to in Dara 15 abov e, of dulv o alified Derson s in dulv sa ctioned vaca t Dosts mio t have been made and the emDlovees have contin ued to work for ten vears or more but witho t the intervention of orders of the cou rts or of tribunals. The o uestion of reo u !a razation of the services of such n sid I b I nlh at con ia flnct n ac cattlad m r! fha !i L ht of cfa urt !n f h cases abovereferred to and in the lioht of this ud ment f dia th State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steDs to re ularize as a on e-ti me measure, the servi es of such irreqularlv aoo oi nted. who have worked for ten vears or more an dulv t not under cov sanctioned Dosts bu er of order of the flra Union lo ee t h r tt o I I I I t I I i 1 i I i ; : 8 SN.J lvp 1945 2021, r it courts or of tribun als a nd should f rlbe.r-€!!9u-rc-tha! len to fill those va nt sa ctioned oosts that reou eto be filled UD, lnc ases wh ere temDora rv emD love s--qLdeilv-luegcE are bei no now emolo ed. The Droc ( ss must be set in motio n within six months fro thi! - tate. .... a i_ ( q d

10. T Co ated 2O.12 .2o24. E reporte n 2024 LawSuit( SC) 12O9 irr a Anita hers v. Unio t relev n Dara oraoh Nos.12, L3. 24, 26, 27 and 28 are extracted hereunder: "12. Despite being labelled as 'part-time workers," the appellants perforr red these essential tasks on a daily and r ontinuous basis over extensave periods, ra r g ing from over a decade to nearly two deca des. Their engagement was not sporadic or :emporary in naiure, instead, it was recurrer t, regular, and akin to the responsibilitie: typically associated with sanctioned posts Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks tlrtring the ippellants tenure, underscc r ing indispensabte nature of their worlr. The claim bv the resoot r lents that 13. ; merit. as these were not reo ula r Dosts lacl ork oe orn ! td bv the the natu re of the ADD llants was oere nial and funr I tmenta Ito the function inoof the offices. I i e: recu rn ng nature of these duties classification as regular posts, irresptrr tive of how their initial engagements were labell ) l, It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsour'- -rg of these same tasks to private agencie: after the necessitat€; .t iI, It t *:;. .,;* 9 SN.J wp 3945 2021 appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

24. The landmark judgment oF the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certaln workers as independent 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 of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the 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 misclassifications and ensurino that worker receive fair treatment.

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 cate orlcallv held that emolov ees tn irreq u la r aDDointments who were en aqed in a nd had served nctioned oo s "irregu la r" o I I t l0 .< ;-.. i i SN.J wp 3945 2021 - contin uouslv for more than ten vears _ 5hould be considered for requlari ation as _ I One- However, the laudable r tent of ime meas the judgment is being subverted when in:il t.utions rely on its dicta to ind iscrim inately rej r'-t the r: their claims of employees, even in cases wh: appointments are not illegal, but mer e Irz la ck adherence to procedural formalities. Go\ ( rnment departments often cite the judgment in L r ra Devi (supra) to argue that no vested lht to regularization exists for temporary efi | loyees, overlooking the r:xplicit rtion is acknowledgment of cases where regular z appropriate. This selective aoolication ! istorts the iu qment' s sDr rit and DurD se, efl s,ctivelv weaoonizinq it aq inst emDlovees w1r have rendered i ndisoensable decades. j udg ment's servtces

27. In light of these considerations , opinion, it is imperative for go\ ( departments to lead by example in prov c and stable employment. Engaging work: temporary basis for extended periods, t: when their roles are integral to the orgatt functioning, not only contravenes inter labour standards but also exposes the org l to legal challenges and undermines etr morale. By ensuring fair emPlr practices, government institutior! reduce the burden of unnecessary lil:i promote job securitY, and uPho principles of justice and fairness tt i are meant to embody, This aPProacr with international standards and positive precedent for the private s: follow, thereby contributing to the betterment of labour practaces in the ,: 28. In view of the above discus; cn and findings, the appeals are allowed. The ir pugned orders passed by the High Court and the -r'ibunal rn our rnment irg fair s;ona t,ecia llY zation's rational rization ployee rYment Jation, d the t they aligns ;ets a :tor to overall r u ntry. !x SN,J wp-3945 2023 are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated

27.lO.2OlB are quashed; The aooellants shall be taken ii. on dutv forthwith and their services reoula rised forthwith. However. the aoo llants shall not be entitled oecu n ta rv benefits/back wa es for the oeriod thev have not worked for but would be entitled to co tinuitv of services for the said oeri od and the same would be counted for their Dost- retiral benefits."

11. nt of the A ed 31.O1.2 2 reoorted in 2O 25 INSC L44 in "SHRIPAL A D ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM GHAZIABAD". in oarticular, the releva nt ara No 1 1 re extracted h re n r It is man afest that the Aooellant Workmen " 15. co ntin uouslv rendered their services over several vears, sometimes soanninq more than a decade. Even if certai n muster rolls were not oroduced in full, the Emolove r's failure to furnish such records- desoite directions to do so-allows an adverse under well-established infe rence la bou r iurisorudence. Indian lab ur law stronqlv disfavors oerpetual dailv-waqe or contractual enqaqements in circumstances where the work is pernlanent in t2 \?.r' -1 SN.J wp 1945 2023 - who fu nature. Morallv and leoallv. work reouirements vc rr after Year onqoinq municipal cannot be dismissed summarilv a 5 _ disoensable. particularlv in the absence of a oen r ne contractor aqreement. At this juncture, it would b ( appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefir i e "temporary" employment practices as done by a rece r t judgement of this court in Jaggo v, Union of India r the following paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse of tempo- contracts, as exemplified in this < broader systemic issue that a i workers' rights and job security. sector, the rise of the gig econorr ) increase in preca rious employmert often characterized by lack of bene'i and fair treatment. Such practl: criticized for exploiting workers t t labour standards. Government instit L with upholding the principles of fairr bear an even greater responsibility exploitative employment practice; sector entities engage in misus: contracts, it not only mirrors the d ) observed in the gig economy t L concerning precedent that can erode governmental operations. rry employment ase, reflects a r ersely affects In the private has led to an a rra ngements/ .:;, job security, ls have been d undermining :ions, entrusted :ss and justice, to avoid such When public of temporary rimental trends t also sets a ) Jblic trust in

25. It is a disconcerting reality hat temporary employees, particularly in governrt 11t institutions, often face multifaceted forms of e;:1 ,loitation. While the foundational purpose of tempor; r / contracts may have been to address short-term or ;':asonal needs, they have increasingly become a mi r t'anism to 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 evade long-t:rm obligations owed to employees. These pract c ls maniFest in several ways: lEreiilTsd : t3 S N.J r!p. l9rri 202i .Mi suse of "Temoorarv" Labels: Emolovees a e ork tha reoular erformin emolovees. labelled as and inteoral to the function ino of an inst tution "temDorarv" or "contractual," even when their roles mtrror Such miscl assification deori ves workers of the secu ritv. and benefits that dion tv. reqular tled to lo ees identical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. . Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. 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 circumstances. " 4 l4 "(.- -! SN.] sp 3945 2023 -

16. The High Court did acknowledge inability to justify these abrupt terminatlor: it ordered re-engagement on daily w;r, measure of parity in minimum pay. Regr: perpetuated precariousness: the Appellan: left in a marginally improved yet still ) While the High Court recognized the imlr work and hinted at eventual regulariza i afford them continuity of service or meanirl commensurate with the degree of st,r evident on record. :re Employer's . Consequently, t:s with some tably, this only \Morkmen were l,:e rta in sta tu s. ) r-ta n ce of their )n, it failed to 11'ul back wages Lrtory violatio n L7. In light of these considerations, he Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Worl. r ren stands in violation of the most basic labour law prir < ples. Once it is established that their services were terr rinated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of thrr U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 7947, and that thev weJ C enqaoed in essential, perennial duties, these worI ers cannot be releoated to perpetual uncertaintv. r,l h i te_Sercgl-lr-5 of municipa! budoet and con r rliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, ;uch concerns do not absolve the EmDlover of statut( rv obliqations or neqate equitable entitleme ! tE --lEdccd, bureaucratlc limitations cannot trumr lhe leqitimate riqhts of workmen who have served ,: )ntinuously an de facto reqular roles for an extended I e!g-d. l5 SN,J wp_3945-2023

18. The im Duqned order of the Hiqh C urt, to extent thev confi ne the Ao Dell a nt Workm ntofu tu re enqaqem ent without continuitv dailv-waqe meanin qful back waoes, is herebv set aside wit llowin s I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen,s services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.p. Industrial Disputes Act, t947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequeRce, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of th is judgment Their entire o riod of a sence (from the date of term tnatron ntil a shall he counted for of servlce a nd all con eouential b such as sen ioritv and Ii contin u al rein tatem s enefits. U s if III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entiUed 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 three months from the date of their reinstatement. fV. The Resoondent Emolover is dire dto initi teafa ir and tra n soa rent oroces reo u la rizrn o thEA ellant Workme n withi months from the date of reinstatem ent dulv considertn the fact that thev hav oerformed r nna erman n o D l6 SN.J Np.r94j 2023 posts. In a sessinq requla rization, the Emolover shall not imoose .e dgca$sEa-t---gl procedural criteria retroactiv e!v if such requirements were never a r rlied to the Appellant Workmen or to sir ! larlv situated he ast, To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for srr :h duties exist or are required, the Resoondent :mplotrer shall tive processes exoedite all necessarv administr to ensure these lonqtime emp )yees are not es contrajy to indefinitelv retained on daily wa statutorv and eouitable norms. . ! I ( r

19. In view of the above, the appea (;) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appea (s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed." L2. The ADex Court in a ru doment reDor :, rd in (2O17) 1 Supreme Court Cases 144. ln State of Pulr ab and others its sub-paras vs Jaqiit Sinqh and thers at Paras 54 ant (1)(2)(3), of the said iudqment observed a ! -u-E-dc-r: "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, upon the above controversy had concludel employees were not entitled to the minimum . scale, merely for the reason, that the activ t daily-wagers and regular employees were sirr i however, made two exceptions. Temporary e', in either of the two exceptions, were held e,t the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regu z exceptions recorded by the full bench of the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:' '/hile adjudicating that temporary '= the regu lar pay- es carried on by tr. The full bench ployees, who fell irled to wages at , employees. The ligh Court in the "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or con:, 1ctual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, 'appointed after undergoing a selection process based t Eon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other t I lible candidates, -:-.. j1l'T:;,S* -. --:.;t* -lrgF " ; llt-rt . * tt Ji !:.=t;:- 17 Sr.'.1 $p 39.15 2023 shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. B w. oc or con 2 ADD ointees are not aDDointed aoainst reoular osts and their services are availed sanctioned continuouslv with notional hreak<- b the S tc Government or its instru mentalities for a sufficient lono oe od i.e. for 70 rs. such dailv w oers. ad hoc or contractual aoo ointees shall be e titled to minimum of the reoular oav scale without anv allowances on the assumDtion that work of erennia I vailable a such lo o oeriod of e, an eouitable rioht is created in such cateoorv of oersons- eir claim for reoula rizatio . if anv. mav have to be considered co'rrrrr6tv worked in terms af laazllv aaemissible i, (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months."

13. The iudqm ent of the Aoex Court reDorted in 2O1O(9) f Karnataka and others v SCC 247 between: State M,L.Kesa ri and others. i n Darticular, Daras 4 to 9 reads as u nder: The decision in State of Karna taka v. Umadevi was rendered 4. In that case, a 10.4.2006 (reported in 2006 G) SCC 1) Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made 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 service 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 manneL in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not inter-fere unduly with the economic 1& I .., I , i I .t l8 SN.J u,p- 1945 2023 arrangement of its affairs by the State or it: nor lend themselves to be instruments to facil t of the constitutional and statutory mandates- held that a temporary, contractual, casua employee does not have a legal right to be unless he had been appointed in terms of the '' adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Cons i however made one exception to the above same is extracted below : 'r)stru menta lities, t,:e the bypassing -ltis Court further c'r a daily-wage Tade permanent levant rules or in Lttion. This Court Dosition and the 7_ t_ :( .l 2 .l ,! Nan 7 7 ons ,n hem lo merits in the liqht of the orinciole court in the c,ase aboverefe tobec rifit "53. One asDect need, casgs where trreou r ADDO tme a DDOint ments) as exolained ,n s 724 Naoaraia n 179 scc 4O9l and B. and referred to in oara 75 above. l. There mav be ille a Na rav.a naDDa tppa [7972 (7) )_ (4) SCC 5071 f'dulv oualified ,sts mio t have 'e continued to been made and the emDlo es hi work for ten vears or more ,t t--withoa!-tte I intervention ofo ers of the court , -o_L_s!Jilbu!E!!S'. uestion of reoularization ol the services of The consid red on : _settled bv this ,- a!.d-i-D-theJlsh! the U ion of instru menta lities should take steD::_ t_a-re,g.t!aize--aE a one-time measu re. the services o tsasniuessla4v ted. who have worke for tt ,_ L Vears or more a oooi oosts b t nol under cover of in du v sanction rts ot of tribun als and should order of the r :ruitme ts are further ensure that resular rta ken to fill th ose vacant u1s!!eDed--29sts reauire to be filled uD. cases where rv emDlo vees or dai,lvw E sers--aP--beiDg temDo now em Dloved, The orocess must I 9-Eet-io-Eotlen "5. It is evident from the above that tl( 1? is an exception to the general principles against 'regularizat cn' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfillr( : six months from this date, .. . his u ,a nt. l! (i) The employee concerned should have wor'< >,1 for 70 years or iore in duly sanctioned post without the ben='it or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. )r cther words, the L9 SN,J u'p_3945_2023 State Government or its instrumentality should have emptoyed the employee and continued him in service voluntariiy and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be iltegat, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be ittegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed quatifications and was working against sanctioned postst but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive setection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. fiii) Umadevi casfs a dutv upon the concerned Govern ment or in tru mentalitv. to take sfeDs to reoularize the services of those irreoularlv aD ointed emolovees who had served for more than ten vears without the benefit or Drotection of anv interim orders of corrrts or tribu asa oDe-l em e2cure- Uma devi- ne-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered o 70.4.2006). 6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regutarize their services. that such

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casua I employees were still pending before Courts. Consequentty, several departments and instru mentalities did not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instru menta lities undertook the one-time 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 20 SN.J u,p_39.15 2023 I t .j 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose considered for regularization, merely becaLt. exercise was completed without considerin ) because the six month period mentioned in p t has expired. The one-time exercise should : wage/ad hoc/those employees who had puL continuous service as on 10.4.2006 witl t protection of any interim orders of courts o- employer had held the one-time exercise in flt, lJmadevi, but did not consider the cases of sorr. were entitled to the benefit of para 5 j of Uma t concerned should consider their cases also, a; the one-time exercise. The one time exercisc only when all the employees who are entitlerl in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considttt 8. The ob iect behind the said directiot l_tn Dara 53 of :neir right to be et the one-time their cases, or e, 53 of Umadevi tt'tsider all daily- in 10 years of ut availing the tribunals. If any nts of para 53 of : employees who : 'ri, the employer a continuation of r, ill be concluded to be considered ed. vi is two- folA Fitc; t in more th a those w, ntjnuet s- selvtce tatuto service. Second ,stoe without the Drotection of anv in terim or'7 ,rs of co tribunals, before the date of decision 1_ Umadevi was rend d, are considered for reoularizel ion in view of 7;_ure that the their lon deDartme nts / instrumenta lities do not ,erDetuate the oractice of emolovino De ons on dailv-w, ae / ad- and ttr rn Der dica llv hoc/casua I for lono De reoularize them on the oround that thev_ lave served for Le-ceasltutiqal more than ten vears, therebv defeatinq t r ! cruitment and apoointment. The true effect of the dir, 2_ LtJ.sa_E_!ha!--a!! Dersons who have worked for more thar ten vea as on 70.4.2006 (the date of decision n Umac vt witho Drotection of anv interim order of anv co' vacant Dosts oossessino the re ouisite entitled to be considered for ularizatr the emolover has not undertaken s reoularizat n within six m nths of Umadevi or that such exerc was un reqard to a limited few, will not es. the riaht to be consi. ered I emDlo in terms of the abov d ire ctions i Umad measure. 't or trib unal. in lification a a=Jhe_fac$hat :11--exers!s9---aI te decision tn rtaken onlv in isentitle such resula rization i as a one-time e ! ! 1 !! ! 7 ! L a r_

9. These appeals have been pending for mcr ) than four years after the decision in lJmadevi. The Appellar t (Zila Panchayat, 2t SN,J wp 3945 2023 Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six month s of the decision in lJmadevi or therea fter.

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be Zonsidered- in aiordance with pw. The only further direction that needs Oe Jiren, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zita canchayai,- e;;"; shoutd now undertake an exercise within six -oilii, i-gJiurut one_ time regularization exercise, to find out *netn'ei tiiie are any daily wage/casua l/ad- hoc emptoyees serving tne Zita p)ncnayat and if so whether such employees (includiig i" irponaurrc) fulfi the requirements mentioned ii para si"r imijlii. rt rhey futfitt them, their services have to be regutarizei. If-;;r; an exercise has atready been undertakun ay ijnoriij ir'Li-iiirq the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because 9f"the pinieiy o'f tn.r. ,ur"r, then their cases shall have to be considerid ih L:ontinuation of the said one time exercise within three ^oiinr'. t-t-i, needless to sjy tla_t if- the respondents do not futfiit lnZ' ,iquirenents or lgra 5S of Ltmadevi, their services need not be iegutarised. If the employees who have compteted tun yi"r, ii*ice do not f.orrg:r the educationat quatifications prestribei iir tne post, at the tim.e .of their appointment, thei ;;y-;; Jonsidered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This'appeal is disposed of accordingly. L4. n e d en of he c Ni al n er V of un b o1 L4 c 65, the Supreme Court considered thc! case of absorption of Special police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paad by Banks at whose disposar their services were made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary "?t!.a.-=- l 22 SN.J rvp.l9{5 2023 l control vested wath the State. It held that tr: creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cad r : is a matter exclusively within the authority of the 51 i te, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but :hose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It a! iA--rcfused-le acceDt the defence that there were no sarr rctioned oosts and so there was iustification for the !; ate to uti I ise services of larqe number of oeoole like thr I a-ppellantg-isr decades. It h eld that "sanctioned oosts d 1 _ not fall from heaven" and that the State has to cre;l,e--lhe!n-Uy--a conscious choice on the basis of some ratic ! al-asEcsslllclt of nee Referrinq to Um adevi. it held tha'l _ lhe appellants I . their initial aooointment was not an'irreoular'a DDOIN t nent. as it had before them were not arbitrarilv c h os€ been made in accordance with the statu t ) prescribed under the Police Act, 1861, : nd th r State cannot be heard to av that thev are no': entitled abso rbed into the services of th State )n Dermanent basis as, accordino to it, their ooointmer I _s__trgc_-p-u-rely temDorarv and not aoainst anv sanctione,l oosts created 23 SN,J wp-3915 2021 State. It was held that the iudqment in Umadevi cannot becom e a licence for exoloitation bv the State and its instrumentalities and neither the Government of Puniab nor th se oublic sector Banks can contanue such a practice inconsistent with their obliqation to function in accordance with the Constitution.

15. The iudo ment of the Aoex Court reoorted in 2O15 SCC On line SC L797 between B.Srinivasul and others v Nellore Municioal Corooration ReD.bv its Commissioner, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh and others, in oarticular paras 7 and 8 reads as under: (7) We find it difficult to acceD t the reasonino adoDted bv the Hioh Court. The riqht of the aooellants to seek reqularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994 The apoellant have been in service of the first resoondent not onlv orior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subseo uent to the issue of G.O. till today. The respondent Municipality being. a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants, 8. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' services be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Collector/Cha irperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 4BO. 24 -- \ ..3rs,-.1 .I sN,l wp .1945 2023

16. In Amarka nt Rai v State of Bihar reD( rted 2 scc 265, the Suoreme Court held that The objective 8 1 behind the exception carved out in this cas: \,vas to permit regularization of such appointment, whict are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointme I ts, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensul I securitv of emDloyment of those Dersons who had sr :_ :v_Cd_ltre_StatC Government and their instrumentalities fot : m-erclha-Ele!! In that case, emolovee was workir !t for 29 vea rs. vea rs". This decision aoDroves earlier view - er(.pregsc.d-i!! M.L.Kesari extracted above L7, In S ate of Jarkhand v Kamal (20L4') 7 SCC 223, similar view was Pra! d re orted ken bv the Supreme Court and it was held as follows : "47.,.. In view of the catesorical findirt of fact on the relevant contentious issue that the resDatdeil-emp-lsyeps eir service for mot :! _than 70 vears have continued in conti nuouslv therefore. the leoa I o ri n cit1 9J 3!C- dewD--by this CoutL in Umadevi case (State of Kart t, ttaka v Umadevi (2006)4SCC7:20 6 SCC (L&S) 73) at 1 ara 53 souarely aoolies to the pteserrt cases. The Divis i n-Eetsh--eI--tbe Hioh Court has riohtlv held that j b-e_EspeDden! emolovees are enti interfered with bv this Court." ief- thc'.9ame cannot forth ereL ,7 -a-- 25 SN,J wp 1945_2021

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2OZT passed in W.P.No.276O2 of 2O19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2023 dated 10.1O.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated

09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024. 19, The iudqment of the Apex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Ma ha ra shtra and Others reported in AIR 20 2O Suoreme Court 3969 and in oarticul ar Dara Nos.lOO and 1O held as follows: w f "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 oF the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandam.us or in the nature of mandamus, but are utv-bound to exercise such iled to exercise or has wron lv exercised discretion conferred uoon it bv a statut , or a rule, or a oolicv decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide, or on i rreleva nt conside ration. ere the Governmen ublic authori r

101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner oF the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority."

20. h Divi a e 1 t2 2 hi e as di W.P obs r e a n e

6.2 1 a d tn A N s h td n h u o 2 3 7of o d7a '1 I I I-l SN,J rvp 39J5 2023 !r its Jud m n oi -? o10 and 854 t atc d o8 .o ,2o10 C.C.r !l .4A of 2008 "Further, it is manifest from the material on services of the similarlv ot.."O p""rron"ril; ;;, c_o u rrs were re g u tarizei i Th" ",p;"t; ;i_,;;# l L1i:,i.":rj::,:","",.,'#"0'J",;;i:f :.il1ij;: f j:i{:.':titili'fl [i"J;ljf :l'.",:,*.ii""" j or-workman. As can be seen from the factual cases on hand, enoaoino tnu ."rpona;;;.#,,, continuous perioO of iim"e FTil,.:i:: ;i# $,ff"t: r# fi :}i j,if{ r or the Apex Courr, rishtiy n"rJinii'i'i" #:;.:l to regularization u, ii... p:l:q . r, gi" i,a g " ;J;::""l"f "li i^ :iU::,".. ; ::::"' i: the proper perspective, *ni.n, i,{ *i ,l ooes not warrant interference in inu."-upp"#,, , . ltcord that the oached the law i()n also tssued ),71.o9.t992, E u la rization of rat Section 25- any employer c enario of the ch a long and ring but unfair ,rt 25-T of the the decisions ts are entitled rders, as the l.he matter in nsidered view

27. The Divi sion Ben ch of his Co u 9.O .20 L7 Dassed tn it w P. No 27 27 u q e nt of 201 7 re ort o 8 2 A D ob e da und r I t a 6 ! !d para 1g .'16. It is trite that the taw declared by the Sup- rne Court is 3fit]l?,,,t#":?',""X:".t^,: .countrv ;;d;h;iJ r41 or rhe that by t r,r time the ludgment in r rm.a n-,,,,)t ^noteworthy . -:?Z:i:.{,rJ.?J: provisions or ;;t r" Zi' il:: J ; }irT.;" lii t2.4.Iee4, were in exi::ence. rh"- ;;p;;u," i . ,n, *n,," oenouncing the practice of regularizati* iri, .ti)-ptron of f 27 SN,J wp 3945 2023 persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appsi.1r..,r ,. public posts, consciously ordered for one-time a bsorption/regu la rlzation 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. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning reg u Ia rization/absorptio n exist. Therefore, Act 2 ot L994 1OO and G.O. Ms . No.212, dated )) a 10(14 don ^t whi tt a n.lt h in M, n ud men lower the traiectorv of the directions issued bv the Suoreme Court in Para 53 of its iudoment in Uma Devi's f ra J r t h a:<a .l.rr^,7r +h6 width su r /cr rnr=\ i h ha?m rssl h ct 2 of 1994 4 to den who have, admittedlv. satisfied the the ud m n It is k ts to s.N .2L2 the oetitione down in Devi's case (suora), t

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2077, in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside ic allowed wit h f trar-ii^ rr +.r +ha and ha r ri.i+ ri6iili.rh resDondents to consider reo ularisation of the services of the Detitioners aqainst the existino vacancies of work Insoectors and aDooint them subiect to their satisfvino the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the iudqment in Uma Devi's case (suora ) Th is orocess must be comoleted wathin two months f rom the date of receiot of a coov of this order." h

22. e ision Ben h h ourt in its Ju m n dated 21.O4.2 2O oassed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O O in 1 of 2019 and w .P. No.2 3O57 of 2O19 reoorted in 2O2O(4)ALD oaqe r 48 and ara 50 ob rV as un "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of 28 \r \''l'''.j SN.I wp l9li 202 i e n t service by now. They have been given minim.r r time-scare from the year 2000. They have been-.ontinroUS f *".'1,"g withouf any Court orders in their favour from 1990 tili , at; 8. ldett_ tras__nsl se_IsupleL_ js exola i ned tn M.L. Kesara sca se (su ra) a d und ertakena n -qf- taily__.l^,esc emDlo veesw ho had workedfor moretha -te_nIQ_yeeE ith u tibulafs_aspr a 10.4. 2006a nds ubiect th em toa Dro cess ufilattlsr_aE_ta sts a d rsls.__at1E_ifle. or tn a n ,s t e h e h e h u e n D )_f e lar e e et s i ; I I ! i

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowe orders dated 20.g .2019 passed by the lst res the cases of petitioners for regularization of time basis are declared as illega l, a rbitra ry Articles 14 16 and 2 1of the Constitutio t I d n s e t f e c initial dat sof th tra oor n a e o d h c DV oftheo rder tm nt. But- h r I the impugned f ondent rejecting j e rvices on one- r rd violative of ' of India; the _ lne-time basis -:L:e-EUtrsrqs I roes from the ( hal n b at e ! lrcrse shall be th d ! _of receipt of o1

23. Th s OU h (! ca e d n ed to ts ar e u ti on d tn exa m inino f e ulrriz ation of i lre Attender r her o nsi er of th e r A e d r o f a eri di e e o t I I temDorarv t r I d n r o! Of fu m ra nti g t 'o m trme o t :,,t;**; -:i 'l:i :;+&&i,.,'**-; , - 29 SN.J wp 3945 2023 time from the dateofa Dointment of the Detitio ner, rn accorda nce to law.

24. This Cou rt oDines t at Deti loner rs e ntitled for con sideratio of oetitioner's case for qrant of the relief as Draved for ntheo resent rit Petition in vrew of the obs rvation s of the Aoex Court in va rlou iudom ents to an extr the vi wof ton Bench of this Court in the Judqments referr e an Divi e n

25. Takino i nto consideration: - a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 6. c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: i)(2o20) l SCC (L&S) (aa) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 Lawsuit(SC) 12O9 30 SN,J wp-1945-2021 1 l .,1 (v) (2017) l sCc 148 (vi) 2o1o(s) scc 247 (vii) (2O13) 14SCC 65 (viii) 2015 SCC Ontine SC L7g7 (ix) (2o1s) I scc 26s (x) (2oL4) 7 scc22s (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2OZ4 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2oo6) 4 ScC 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2Olll and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment date rr I 08.09.201O passed in W.p.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.I,I ).48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this C:ourt dated t9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.p.No.272L7 ot 2O17 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this lourt dated 21.O4.2O2O passed in LA.Nos.l ot 2O2O in :. of 2O19 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2Ot9 (referred to and extra( ted above). S) In the light of discussion and conclusion rs arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order. , 31 SN,J wp_1945 2021 The Writ P t t onr al lowed, the oetitioner rs d ire edtoD ut-forth the claim of the oetitioner for reo u la rizationofoe ition er's servt ce ,a nd also the c the oetitioner to treat the temDo ra rv se rvice s of the ner ! f Atten ar on for all ourooses bv orantino last o rade oav with oe riod ica I tncre ments revised fro time to time from the date of ADD ointment of the Detitioni: randa ll conseo uential be nefits. dulv enclosinq all the relevant docum ents in t etition 's cas ut-f hin h e writ Detition, within a Derio of one (01) w k from the date of receio of coov of the o er and the resoo ndents shall exa mrne and consid er the same in accorda nceto law, in conform itv with orinci Dles of natural provr nq an oDportunatv of persona I hearino to the in terms of ord rs oassed bv the Su reme petitioner Cou rti n Uma Devi's case reDorted in 2OO6( 4) SCC Paqe 1, the iudqment Da ssed in W.P.N .24377 o8.O9.2010 reDorted in 2O1 1(1) A D, Paoe 234 and as confi rmed in .A.No.782 of 20 1O dated 1o.06.201 3, and a !so as Der Di vtsron Be ch Judq ment of this Court dated f 2007 i ustic 32 SN,J rvp 3945_2021 -

19.09.2 OL7 Dassed tn W.P.N .2721 7 of 20/17 o ed in 2 8 2 LD a 2 2 d e l) vision Be ch Ju ment of I.A.Nos.1 r ort c rt ated 2L. sed in of 2O2o inlof2O 19 in w.P. No. 3057 of 2o19 in 2O2 ALD a e 4 2 t( 79 hi tha atta ined finalit within a efl 4 ) a trom the date receiptofa copv of this order, dur heA ex extracte urt in th var ous dabove), and ln Da iud qment of the Apex Cou l_.!aid down by d n rr fer red to and lar, o in the ara No.53 of the s f tat of n o ma De d e tion r. How V r orT l lunicate the er: hall be o Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendin( in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. S D/.8. REKHA RANI AS F I TANT REGISTRAi /iTRUE COPY// iECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTTCE S (For Her Ladyships Kind Perusat) P 1 -LI NANDA I[: ,1:fl,"J_tB:filo

1. 'l'l LR Copibs. , 3. The Secretary, Telanoana Advocates Association Library I igh Court 4 The Principar secretary. panchayathraj Department, cov, ) rment of I eransana Secretariat. Hya"rr#C'S#tJ;f t;i;lj:"". Union of tndia rvinistry of Law, Juslrt e and company Buildings, Hyderabad. a*l-- l': :'tr' '-.-.,'.. -**ri To I t I .,. l Suryapet, Suryapet District.

5. The Principal Secretary,.Finance and planning Department, Government of ^ J9ta1ga1a, Secretaria.[ Hyderabad, State oiielangana. 6. The District coilector (parichayats) and cnairmin diSeiection committee, 7. The Chief Executive Offic-gr, Zilla praja parishad, Suryapet District. B. The District Education officer Suryafiet oistiici, buryJ[5tlr""iins-;n, strt" 9. The Mandar Deverooment officer, ivrunagaii rrilnoai, sr.vapet drsiii.i'*'" 10.one CC to SRt cn.bnlresu. AJiro.rr"Y6Frrc'i' 1 1. Two cCs to Gp FoR SERVTcES-r, t-rrtgh'cou-irtr the State of rerangana, at 12.One CC to SRt PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, SC FOR Mpp Zpp [OPUC] '13.Two CD Copies Hyderabad. [OUT] PSK. BS Prnq. ta' t' irta :i:.,!ttl: HIGH COURT DATED:0610812025 ORDER WP.No.3945 of 2023 1 r -.f 5'*r ) ..,,t.)' (. 10I ,+ "1'']!5" * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Pmu. ro[r-l>6 / ' I