The High Court · 2025

Date 72-70-2027 Sub: R&B Department- NMRS _W.p.No.1905 of 2021 fled by Sri Ch. Niranjan, S/o. Sri Ch. Maltalah. f,f l,f n w"?f. Inspector, in Hon,ble High Court for the dtutu oi'iutungana at Hyderabad for Regularization of ruiri"r-in the cadre of Work Inspector - Speaking Orders_lssuld. Ref: 1. W.p. No.1905 of 2027 filed by Sri Ch. Niranjan, S/o. Sri Ch. Mallalah, NMR W.t. 2. Orders issued on 13.08.2021 in W.p. No. 1905 of 2021 by the. Hon,bte High Courr for the Staie'if ilrungun" .t Hyderabad received on dt. 16.0g.2021 3. Application of Srl Ch.. Niranlan. S7o, Ch. Malalah,NMR W.I. dt .17.07.2021, receivea on tg.Oti.ZbZi.' OoO 6 sr;'ai u'P ?1r.) Sri Ch. Niranjan, S/o. Sri. Ch. Ma alah, NMR Inspector has flied Writ Petition No.1905 of 2O2l in Hon,ble High Court for the State of Telnagna at Hyderabad for Regurarization oi services in the cadre of Work Inspector as per G.O.Ms. No.212, Fin (pC.III) Deptt., Dr.22.O4.7994. The Hon'ble High Court issued Orders on t3.Oj.2O2t in W.P.No.1905 of 2021 vide reference 2nd cited that, the ,.Writ petition can be disposed of by directing the petitioner to submit fresh representation within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order making his claim for regularization of services in terms of G.O,Ms.No.2l2 dt. 22.O4.L994 and also the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra), and upon such representation is being received, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in another eight weeks thereafter in terms of the said G.O. and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra)". As per the orders issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana as stated above Sri Ch. Niranjan, S/o Sri Ch.Mallalah, NMR Work Inspector has submitted a fresh application vide reference 3'd cited. Further, as per the available office records, the applicant i.e., Srl Ch. Niranjan, S/o. Ch. Mallalah, NMR Work Inspector, worked from 5/1987 to 7/1987 & from tl/1987 to 3/1988 and discontinued from onwards and from 14.O3.1990 he is contin ino as NMR 04/ . From this it is clear that the Individual worked with breaks in service and not having continuous minimum service of (5) years as on 25.11.1993. BS -Div m et till 1988 rk In As per the G.O.Ms.No.272, Fin (PC.fiI) Deptt., Date: 22- 04-7994 the services of persons who worked continuously for a minimum period of 5 years and continuing as on 21-ll-7ggg shall be regularized subject to fulfillment of the quatification age, rule of reservation and availability of clear vacancies of posts considered as per work load excluding the vacancies already notified by the APPSC / DSC. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.3750 of 2006 in WA No.374101 issued directions regarding regularization of NMRS/daily wage em ployees/others that, ,,who are covered by Section 7 of the 1994 Act (amended) and whose services have not been regularized so far, shall be entitled to be considered for regularization and their services shall be regularized subject to fulfillment of the conditions enumerated in G.O.212, dt= 22.04,L994". With a view of obviate further litigation 7 SN. ,I wP 1499 2022 on this issue, we direct the Government of Andhra Pradesh, its officers and agencies/instru menta lities of the State to complete the exercise for regularization of the services of eligible employees within four months of the receipt/production of copy oF this order, without being influenced by the fact that the application. writ petition or appeal filed by any such employee may have been dismissed by the Tribunal or High Court or this Court. As per the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana in the above case, the fresh application dt.t7.O7.2O2l received in this office on 19.08.2021 from the petitioner Sri Ch. Niranjan, NMR Work Inspector, is examined in terms of the orders issued in the G.O.Ms.No.212 Fin. (PC.III) Department dt:22.O4.1994. As stated suDra the individual has not worked continuouslv fo a minimum Deriod of (5) vear and continuino s on 25.11,1993. Hence. he is not elioible for reoul rization of a services as NMR Work fnsDector. In view of the above and under the circumstances explained supra, the Petitioner Sri. Ch. Niranjan, S/o. Sri Ch. Mallalah, NMR Work Inspector is hereby issued "Speaking Orders" stating that, he is not eligible for regularization in the cadre of Work Inspector and his application cannot be considered. Sd/-xxx District R&B Officer (Executive Engineer) Warangal District To, Sri Ch. Niranjan, S/o. Sri Ch. Mallalah NMR Work Inspector R&8, Warangal. (Through the Dy. Executive Engineer, R&B Sub-Division, Narsampet) (B) Relevant oara No.5 in the oder date L3.O7.202L oassed in W. P. No. 19O5 of 2O21 in favour of the Detitioner is extracted hereunder "6. This Court, having regard to the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that this Writ Petition can be disposed of by directing the petitioner to submit fresh representation within two 8 SN. J wP 7199 2022 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order making his claim for regularization of services in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212 dt.22-04-1994 and also the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra), and upon such representation is being received, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in another eight weeks thereafter in terms of the said G.O. and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Umadevi (supra)". (c) Counter affi avit has been filed bv the learned counsel aDDear no on behalf of resDond ent No.4 in oarticular Dara No.9 is extracted hereunder: "9. In reply to para-8, it is submitted that, the petitioner is not eligible for regularization of services, since there are breaks in service and no continuous service of (5) years as on 25.11.1993 as per g.O.Ms.No.212 Finance & Planning Department dt .22.O4.1994. The law laid down in case of Uma Devi is not same and similar to this Case. Hence, the speaking orders were issued duly rejecting the request of reg u la rrza tion ". DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the 4th respondent rejected the petitioner's request for regularization of services in the cadre of Work Inspector on the ground that the petitioner had breaks in service and had no continuous service of five years as on 25.11.1993 as per t@r, 9 SN. J wP 1499 2022 G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance and Planning Department dated 22.04.1gg4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the impugned order of the 4th respondent dated 12.10.2021 is contrary to the orders dated

13.08.2021 passed in W.P. No.1905 of 2O2l and also contrary to the view taken by this Court in the judgment dated L9'09'2017 passed in W.P. No. 27217 of 2OL7 under similar circumstances and therefore, in view oF the judgment of the Apex Court in Uma Devi Vs. State of Karnataka, the case of the petitioner has to be necessarily considered and the same cannot be rejected since the petitioner had been working continuously since the year

1985. Basing on the aforesaid submlssions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present wrlt petition'

6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of respondents, placing reliance on the averments in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of 4th respondent in particular para No.4 contends that the petitioner is not entitled for regularization oF services since there had been break in petitioner's services and the petitioner did not have continuous service of five years as on 1995 and therefore, the \: J l0 SN. J wP 7199 2022 petitioner cannot claim any benefit as per G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance & Planning Department dated 22.04.L994. It is however specifically stated in the order impugned that the petitioner is continuing in work since 14.03.1990 till as on the date of issuance of the impugned order i.e, 72.10.2O2I

7. A bare perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance & Planning Department dated 22.04.1994 clearly indicates that the same is issued for the purpose of formulating the scheme for regularization and absorption of Daily Wage/NMR or Consolidated pay employees, who are otherwise qualified depending on the workload duly taking into consideration their hardship if their services are not regularized. G.O.Rt.No.212, dated 22.4.7994 clearly stipulated that the Government have decided that the services of the persons, who are having contlnuous service of five years and are continuing as on 25.11.1993 be regularized subject to fulfillment of specific conditions.

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner disputes the plea taken vide the impugned order of the 4th respondent dated 12.10.2021 stating that the petitioner is not eligible for regularization since the petitioner had not worked SN, J wP 7499 2022 continuousry for a period of five years and contends that the impugned order is passed mechanically without application of mind, without considering the observations in the Apex Court lqdg ment in U ma Devi Vs.s teof Kar ka.

9. The learned Assistant Government pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of respondents on the other hand seeks disposal of the writ petition on the basis of the averments made in the counter affidavit. 1O. A bare perusal of .the record indicates that the specific plea of the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition is that the petitioner has been appointed as NMR in the year 1985 and had completed five years of service in the year 1990 itserf without breaks in service. The said pleas however are disputed in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents.

11. Th cc 247 b u m c 2 o e v M.L.Ke sari and othe rs, inoarticu lar, oaras4t o9 readsas u nder: d K

4. The dec rsaon inS ate of n e d .4 o n aka v.U mad ln oo6 4 vt wa 1 s t ) SN.,, wP 7199 2021 a n t In of this Court held n that appointments made without following the due process or the ru les relatin gto appointment did not confer an right on the appoi ntees and courts cannot direct thei f absorption, regulari zation or re- engagement nor make their service perma nent, and the High Court rn exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution shoul d not ordinarily issue directio ns for absorption, regula.tzation or perma nent contin uance unless the recruitment had been done in a regula r manner, in terms of the constitut ional scheme; and that the courts must be carefu rn ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic f its affairs by the St arrangement o ate or its instrumentalities nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypa ssing of the constitutional and statuto ry mandates. This Court further held that a tem porary, contractual, casu y-wage employee does not have a legal right to be mad e permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articl es 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This v u ition and the s mer extracte belo al or a dail ow ver x o h a D w: "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irreg u la r appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. N arayanappa [1967 (1) scR 128l, R.N. Nanjundapp a 11972 (1) SCC 4091 and B .N. Nagarajan 11979 (4) scc s07l and referred to i n para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in d uly sa ncti oned vacant posts might have been made and the em U r o n interven ion of ordersof the f v hav e olov t eto e con u rts r t h ribLrn Is. on men State In that context, the Unio h Governments and iudg men t. n of India, nstru mental ities shoutd take steps to regularize as a one-time measu re, the services of such irregularly a ppointed, who have worked for ten years or mo re tn duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of o rs of the courts or of tribunals and should fu rther ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill l3 SN. J wt, 1499 2022 those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled uP, in cases where temporary employees or daity wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in mot'on within six months from thas date. .... h "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 y""rt ol. more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal' In other words, the State Government or its e contin ued him rn se ce volu ntarilv and continuouslv for more than ten vears. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not .ui" or. continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be iilegal. But where the person employed possessed the pre-scribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be lrregular. h Um devi c sts a dutv u on the concer ned (iri) rn ment or instru mentali Gov reou larize th servtces of thos irreoula rlv aooointed em lovees who had servedform ore tha ten v without the benefit or oro ction of anv intertm ke ste I ndered on 1O.4. 2006). its decision ( 6. The term 'one-tlme 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 l4 SN. J wP 7499 2022 a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instru m enta 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 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not Iose 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 da ily -wage/a d 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 Umadevi, 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. h

8. The obiect hind the said direction in Dara 53 of Um adevlt s two- fold - First is toe nsure t at those !,yho have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the Drotection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decisaon in Umadevi was rendere are considered for reoularizatio in view of their lono service. Second is to ensure th t the deoartments / instru entalities do not DerDetuate the Dractice of emDlovino Dersons on dailv-waoe ad-hoc/casual for lono oeriods and then n the round tha the rt di r f r more th defeatino the constitutio al or statutorv orovisions t5 SN, J wP 't 499 2022 +l.r ir +a6 for m^r.a t arc rc.rt.l relatino to ruitment and aDDointm nt, The true effect of the direction is tha all Defq.l ns who h ave ln A, no6 It h date of decision in Umadevi) wathout the orotection of anv interim order of anv court or tri unal, in vacant Dosts Dossessino the reou isite oualification. tian Th fact that th und rtaken such exercise of reqularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such xerctse was few will n lro aancid er df emDlover has nre ar itl d tn r disentitle such emploLees, the rioht to be considered for reqularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure. k

9. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or thereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casua l/ad - h oc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency oF these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. -""" l6 SN. J wP 1199 1022 L2. The iudoment f the Aoe x Cou Dorted in 2015 scc online SC 1797 between B.Sriniva USU and others v Nellore Municipal Corooration Rep .bv its Commissio n er, N6llore District, Andh ra Pradesh and others, in particular n 8re sun r t k It !la n ourt. Th t a riqht of find i 7 ado ed bv the Hioh No.212 dated 22.4.19 94. The aooellan t have been rn t h rssuan ce of the said G.O. but even su bseo uent o the rssue of G.O. till todav. The respondent M u niciPa litY being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O' 212(su pra ). ke pt Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents ce of quite for almost 20 years without regularlsing the servi the appellants and continued to extract work from appellants. eG r s In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the 8. 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 ls allowed modifying the order under appeal by directino that the appeltants' services be reoularised with effect from their co oletino t eir five vear the date of contin uous servr ce as was Iaid down bv this co urt in Collector /Ch atroerson & Others vs. M.L Distri sino & Ors. 2OO 9 (8't SCC 48o. i v State of Bihar re orted (2O 1s) I 13. In A arkant scc 265 the SuDrem e Court held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in thas case was to permit regularisation of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are l1 SN, J wP 1499 2022 irregular but not illegal, and to ensure securitv of employment of those persons who had served the State Government and their instrumentalities for more than ten ar ". In tha ca m lo ee was wor r This decision aDDroves earlier view exDressed in M. L. Kesa rlextracted a bove- L4. In the iudqment of the Apex Court in Nihal Sinqh and others v. State of Puniab re orted in (2013) 14 SCC 55. the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal 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 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 relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also refused to l8 SN, J \\ I' 7199 2022 d f nce th e were no a and so there was iustificatlon for the State to utilise services of larqe num ber of DeoDle like the appellants for decades. It held that "sanctioned posts do not fall from has to create them bv a heavcnll conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment of need. Refer ino to Umadevi. it held that het a ooe lla nts before them were not arbitrarilv chosen. their initial aooointment was not an 'irreoular'a oDointment as it had ccordance with the stat t r orescribed under the Police Act. 1861. and the State cannot be heard to sav tha thev are not entitled to be absorbed into the services of the State on Dermanent basis as, accordinq to it, their a ODointments we re ourelv temDorarv and not aoainst an V sa nctioned bv the State. It was held that the iudqment in Umadevi s created D cannot become a licence for exoloitation bv the State and its instrumentalities and neither the Government of Puniab nor those public sector Banks can continue such a oractice Inconsr s ent with their obliqation to function in t accord ance wath the Constitution. l9 SN, J wP 7499 2022 n State of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasad reoorted in

15. 20L4 7 c22 imilar v b h Su or me Court nd it was held as follows : "47.... In view of th cateoorical ndino of fact on the I continuouslv therefore. the leoa Drinciole laid d,own bv rt in Umade vt case (State of Karnataka v this Co aDDlies to the orese t cases. The Division Benc, of the em D ovees are entitled for the relie interfered with bv this Court." the canteca nnot he o6 4 hc. 006 s s u nd' I,

16. Para No.53 of the ofthe iudom ent of the Aoex Court in the tate of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadev , dated 10.04. OO6 reoorted in (2006) 4 SCClise racted hereu nder:- 1 1 72 "53. One asDect needs to be clarified. There mav be cases where irre ular aDDointments (not illeqal tm n 1 o scR 1 a d R.N. N n Na ar 15 .v. N I a 4 f dul 1 79 hmt t n narcfinc ind v sanrtion ed va atrtt t hrrra been made and the emolovees have con nued to ten vears or more but wit out the work for tnterven ion of orders of the courts or of ri bu na ls. The ouestion of reoulariza tion of the service s of such mav have to be considered on merits in emolov the oht of the orincioles settled bv this Cou in the cases above refer d to and in the lioht of this iudqment. In that context, the Union of Indaa, the their instr U mentalities State Govern > \ 20 o r r h av wo k n SN. J \\ P rt99 2021 hould take steDs to req ula rize asa one-time s u n u more in d f orders of th r ens re th ken to fill those ulat re d ases whe ete DOrarve Dlo va nt es or dailv waq ers are beinqno em loved. Th Drocess must be set ln ithin six months from this date...,. motion t nd ho tsa re f tri fille u e r

17. Th d t A Co ed 2O.1 .2024 o h v 20 Law lll fI 2O9 in Ja o n ita nd hers and the r lev nt osJ 2, 1 4 26. 27 nd 28 are extracted DA he under: - "12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers,; the appellants performed essentia! tasks on a daily and continuous bisis ore. extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades' I nelr engagement was not sporadic or temporary -."ir.., instead, it was recurrent, regular' ina akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts' Moreover' [tre ..tponaents did not engage- any other peisonnel for these tasks during the ippellants tenure, underscoring the indispensaUle nature of their work'

13. Th n e thenature of n n II s e the work h f s e t d m rit c ormed bvt he Ito n . The recu rring 2t SN, ] wP 7499 2022 nature of these duties necessitates their c.lassification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies ifte, the appellants' termination demonitrates 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 judgement of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Miciosoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (gth Cir. 1996)] 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 workeis as independent contractors, thereby Oenying-them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of npp"eals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these'wtrkers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that L.g" 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 employmlnt status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It iqhlio hts th tw rk receive fair treatment. e n While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor Lnt.i", and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny 22 S\. J \P 7J.)9 1022 n sider "irregular" legitimate claims of long serving employee-s This ju"dgment aimed to distinguish between ''illegal" -anO apPointments' eld t at em lovees in It cateoori callv u lar aDoointments, wh o were enoaqe din oostsandh ad dulv sa n served ars sh uld contin u ousl v for more tha ten ed for reo u la ization as a one- be co ti em easu re However, the laudable intent of subverted when institutions the judgment is being in discrim inatelY reject the rely on its dicta to even in cases where their claims of emPloYees, t illegal, but merelY lack appointments are no adherence to Procedu ral formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi to argue that no vested right to (supra) regular ization exists for temporary employees, explicit overlooking acknowledg ment of cases where regularization is appropriate. T e vea licati n dis r lo e judgment's a o lzl n 'ss services e bl e indisDen ren dered decades. In light of these considerations, in our 27. opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation' promote iob security, and unhgl! ..tne irinciples bf ;ustice and fairness that they ire meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to 23 SN, J wP 7499 2022 follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. 28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Trib"unal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 . L0.2018 are quashed; ai. TheaD lla nts sha Ilbeta ken e f d n iH However, the a poellants sh ll not be ben efits,/ back waqes for the Deriod have not worke for ut wo uld be entitl d to contin uitv of services for the said riod and o for thei iral benefi r

18. The Judqment of the ADex Courtda ed 31. 01.2 25 DA OTHE v er evan 44i "sH o2 NI AL AZ M N B e NA ! para N os.15 to 19 are e racted hereu nder: "15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer,s failure to furnish such records-despite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well_established 24 SN, J wP 7499 2022 labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature' Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be of indefinite appropriate to recall the broader critique by a recent "temporary" employment practices as done 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 increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices' When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation' While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 evade long-term obligations 25 SN, J wt, 1499 !02.2 owed to employees. These several ways: practices manifest in . Misuse of "Tem Dorarv" Labels: Emolovees o ork that is e n ial r and anteqral to the fun ioninq of an institution are often labelled as "temoorarv" or "contractua1," even when their roles mirror those of reoular emDlovees. Such misclass ficationde nrtves w()rkers of dionitv, securitv. and benefits that reoular emplovees are entitled to, despite performanq 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 significant. . 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 .! 26 cases. of illness, retirement, circumstances." SN. J \\P 7499 2022 or u nforeseen

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity 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 reco rd. 17. 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 adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory obligations or negate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the legitimate rights of workmen who have served continuously in de Facto regular roles for an extended period. 27 SN, J wP 7499 2022

18. The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent they confine the Appellant Workmen to future daily_wage engagement without continuity or meaningful back wages, is hereby set aside with the following directions: 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, 7947, is declared illegal. All oiO.r, or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in'service from tne date of their termination, for all purposes, inctuOing 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 performeOj *itnin fou. weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire period of absence (from the date bf termination untit actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of service and all consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any. III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o of [he back'wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three montiri from the date of their reinstatement. IV. TheResDon dent Em lover is directed to o t f ork en fair an h o d th fa a ssr n h akin to e m ul r n f nn I 28 SN, J \rP 7199 2022 Employer shall not impqse educatiqnal or Drocedural criteria retroaetivelv if such requirements were never applied to the Apoellant Workmen or to similarlv situated reoular emolovees in the oast. To the extent that sanctioned vacanci es for such duties exist or are reouired, the Res Dondent EmDl ver shall exoedite all necessarv administrative DT cesses these lon time em lo ees indefinitelv retained on dail v wa oes contrarv to statutorv and eouitable norms. o o

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."

19. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed W.P.No.276O2 of 2O19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, had been upheld by the in W.A.No.937 of 2023 Division Bench of this Court dated 10.1O.2O23 and also Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLP No.32847 ot 2024. confirmed by the order of

20. The relevant ortion of the order of this Court dated L9.O9.2OI7 oa ssed in W.P. No. 272L7 of 2O17 is extracted hereu nder: -

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 29 SN. J wP '1499 2022 judg ment in Uma Devi ( I supra) was rendered the provisions ofAct 2 of 1994 and G.O.Ms'No' 212. dated 2z-04-t994, were ln existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of persons, who e ntered service through backdoors by 9iving a go-bYe to the due procedure prescribed for appointme nts to public Posts, con sciouslY ordered for onetime a bsorPtio n/ regularization of those, who were working for a Period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this rega rd 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 execu tive orders such as G.O.Ms.No. 212, dated 22-04-1994, while giving directions in Para No. 53 of the judgment in Uma Devi (1 supra). But still, it has not made any excePtion in favour of the States where State enactments banning reg u la rization/absorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 and G.O.Ms.No. 212, dated hittle dow the width and the 22.04.t994, do not B sh of he n t 53 of its iudome r f1 4a rn maDevi ( n Court ln Para t I r u su Dra). d G .M w m M t d n c D Par dlv, u me e !a tisfi dth criteria ve, admi o. t7. We have already noted the repeated requests of [spondent No. 2 made to respondent No' 1 for regularization petitioners and other similaily situated persons by "ifi" emphasizing on the need for such a bsorption/reg u la rization ' Uniortunateiy, respondent No. t has not accepted the request of respondent No. 2 in this regard' It is brought to the notice of this Court that respondent No. 2 has undertaken a selection proc"itfor. filling up 13 vacancies of Work Inspectors and that lnougn the same is completed, in view of the. interim order fruni"O by this Court, the posts were not filled up' Since ippolni."'nt orders have not been issued to the selected candidates, they cannot claim indefeasible right' As the puiiiion"..' cannot be overlooked for regularization' the ielection process initiated by respondent No' 2 cannot be sustained. The Tribunal has not examined the case From r -19 4 DE ition rs, who ha 2 30 SN, J wP 7499 2022 proper perspective and misdirected itself in holding that the petitioners are not entitled for regularization/absorption as they do not satisfy the criteria laid down in G.O.Ms.No.212, daled 22-04-1994.

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27-06- 2017, in OA.No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to consider regularisation of the services of the petitioners against the existing vacancies of Work Inspectors and appoint them subject to their satisfying the criteria laid down in Para No. 53 of the judgment in Uma Devi (1 supra). This process must be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

19. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.33B0B of 2017, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. 2L. The SLP(Civi!) Dairv No.L5327/2018, oreferred aqainst the above iudqment, dated 19.O9.2O17 oassed in .P.N 272L7 f2 17 ha ftheA ex Cou dated O7.O5.2O18 n e n missed vide ud m extracted hereunder:- "Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed on the facts oF this case. "

22. The Apex Court in a iudqment reDorted in (2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148, in State of Puniab and others vs Jaqiit Sinqh and others at Para s 54 and its sub-oaras (1)(2)(3), of the said iud ment observed as under: \ I l 1l SN, J wP 7499 2022 "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay- scale, merely for the reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The full bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Couft in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder: - "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2) But if dailv waqers, ad hoc or contractual aDoointees are not aDpointed acrainst reqular thair <arvi?c< arc awailad <anelianad continuouslv, with notiona I breaks, bv the State Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient lonq oeriod i.e. for 7O vears, such dailv waqers, ad hoc or contractual appointees shall be entitled to minimum of the reoular pav scale without anv allowances on the assumotion that work of perennial nature is available and havinq worked for such lonq period of time, an eouitable riqht is created in such categorv of oersons. Their claim for reqularization, if anv, mav have tg be considered seoarately in terms of leoally oermissible scheme. nacf< antl (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." A bare perusal of the observations of the Apex Court in various iudqments referred to and extracted above clearlv indicate that the claim of the oetitioner for reqularization has to be necessarilv considered in view of 32 SN. J wP 7J99 2022 em s rea h e ol t ofo e e o c t at oaraN os. 6 to 1 Karn of the udomen o the M.L.Kesari whi hin ataka v c u A e cl ear exolicit termss id that II he h d n c nc r t r t r s e d em d e a ca se as exDlai nedin D ra 53 of thes u rre ru time exercise will be ho are nt o Uma Devi a re so ct in Uma D vi' b aid iudqment odo el fo r la se s rv e of h n a d an 10 vears.a a on t me me asu re an t o fU ra '5' of a r t tU aD vl t v rn e n e e e vtc h u t h rT e o e b t e n t e i's n t e b r o t n o he s s ad u M u t K a e e s ti n o rt in ndo he n erne t k s t h tr e t r e tha e rs n f n int rl -t s r a r 4 2 r e f tb n l I l JJ SN, J wP '1499 2022 .Iudoment of the ADex Court in State of Pu niab and Others v. Jaqiit Sinqh still hold oood which has clearlv said that a leoallv oermissible scheme has to be framed in resoect of ers adhoc or contr re no ainst sanctioned os h lr availed continuouslv with notaonal breaks bv the State Government or its instrumentalitv for a sufficient lonq period i.e., for ten Years.

23. The iudoment of the A ex Court in Hari Krishna D andir Trust V. State of Mah ra sh ra n in AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 and in particular Dara Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows: "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 mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are dutv-bound to exercise such ower where the overnmen has failed to exercise or has wronqlv exercised discretion conferred uDon it bv a statute, or a rule, or a oolicv decislon of the Government or has exercised fide, or on irrelevant such discretion mala consideration. r m

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." 34 SN.., J wP 7499 2022 This Court oD ines th in the I'resent case respon ents failed to discharqe th ir dutv in exa mtntnq the reo uest of the oetitioner for reoularization of s sen rces in the cadre of Work InsDector tn Detiti accordance to law.

24. This Court opines that the impugned order passed by the 4th respondent dated 12.10.2021 rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularization of petitioner's services in the cadre of Work Inspector is. not reasonable and the same is passed mechanically, without application of mind, illegally and contrary to the observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments referred to and extracted above. A bare perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent indicates that the specific plea taken by the 4th respondent in rejecting petitioner's request for regularization is that petitioner had no continuous service of '5' years as on 25-11-1993 therefore petitioner is not eligible for regularization of service as per G.O'Ms.No.212 Finance and Planning Department dated 22-04-1994. The said pleas pleaded by the 4th respondent in denying the request of the petitioner for regularization are however disputed by the petitioner who specifically contends that the petitioner was I 35 SN, J wP 1499 2022 appointed as NMR Work Inspector in the year 1985 and had completed 5 years oF service in the year 1990 itself with small breaks in service. ft is however soecificallv observed in the order imouoned, dated L2.LO.2O24 issued bv the 4th resDondent that the Detitioner is workino ntinuouslv as NMR work InsDector in R&B Sub-Divisional NarsamDet from 14.O3.1990 till as on the date of Dassino of the impuqned orders L2.LO.2O2L bv i.e., 4th resoondent. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present Writ Petition in the light of observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) This Court opines that the 4th respondent did not consider petitioner's request for regularization duly considering the observations oF this Court in its Judgment dated

13.07.2021 .passed in W.P. No.1905 of 2O2l in favour of the petitioner on an earlier occasion and without considering the entire material in support oF petltioner's case rejected the request of the petitioner for regularization mechanically in a routine manner, since the order impugned of the 4th respondent, dated tz.lo.2O2l does not indicate any discussion or consideration oF the documents in support of petitioner's case ? l 36 SN. J wP 7499 2022 nor any reference to the same. Therefore, this Court opines that the request of the petitioner for regularization of petitioner's services in the cadre of Work Inspector should be reconsidered by the 4th respondent herein.

25. Takinq into consider tion : (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of resPondents. (c) The order impugned passed by the 4th respondent uide Speaking Orders No. EC2IR&B/ WGL/ 2O2l-22/457, Dated L2.LO.2O2L issued to the petitioner herein, (referred to and extracted above) (d) The averments made in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and in particular paragraph No.9 (referred to and extracted above), (e) The order dated 13.O8.2021 passed in favour of the petitioner in W.P. No. 1905 ol 2O2l and the order h 37 SN. J wP 1499 2022 dated 19.O9.2017 passed in W.P. No. 272L7 ot 2OL7 (referred to and extracted above), (f) The observations of the Apex Court reported in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above), The observations of the Aoex Court in the various iudoments (referred to and extracted above) and s) aqain enlisted below: (i) 2o2s rNsc 144 (ii) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 1209 (iii) (2o17) 1 scc 148 (iv) 2O1O(9) SCC 247 (v) (2013) 14SCC 6s (vi) 2015 SCC Online SC L797 (vii) (201s) 8 scc 26s (viii) (2o14) 7 ScC 223 (ix) SLP No.32847 ot 2024 (x) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xi) (2006) 4 scc 1 The writ petition is allowed as prayed for. The order impugned passed by the 4th respondent dated L2.1O.2O2L is set aside and the 4th respondent is directed to reconsider the request of petitioner for regularization of services in the cadre of Work Inspector wath effect from petitioner's eligibility with all consequential benefits on 38 SN, J wP 7199 2022 par with similarly situated persons, duly taking into consideration the observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments referred to and extracted above and pass appropriate orders, in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an opportunaty of persona! hearing to the petitioner enabling the petitioner to submit the requisite documents in support of petitioner's case and decide the subject issue on the principle of law, equity and justice, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner herein. However, there shall be no order as to costs. closed. The miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand //TRUE COPY// ^','$t"Al+'Xe8'EFRRX SECTION OFFICER 1 ,-, One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble MRS Justice SII-IFPALLI NANDA (For her uadYshiP's Kind Perusatl To, Department' secretariat Errumanzil, HYderauao Iffi.,,n*:,g,,j,"r3i+"",,2?6"T::fl'r.Z?io;tl'dinss , ? The Enqineer-in-Chief io'ds ana Buildings (Administration)' Telangana' 3. The Superintendent Engineer' Roads and Buildings Circle' Nakkalagutta' 4 The Executive Engineer' Ro.?l: und Buildings' Warangal (Rural) Division' " H;#k;;;a, waiansal District Warangal Distrlct'

5. One CC to SMT.K.RAJYA LAKSHMI, Advocate. IOPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES l, High Cou( for the State of Telangana

7. Two CD Copies. B. 11 LR.Copies 9. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

10. The Secretary, Advocates' Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. BSK Yv CC TODAY sTAIE o c) L)$ ltt5 C) >. .-i + + iE:^o;i \-- \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:01 10512025 ORDER WP.No.7499 of 2022 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS "fAa\ &*