The High Court · 2025

"36. There aTe some of the employees who ha /e not been regularized in spite of having rendered the se- i:es for 30- 40 or more years whereas they have been sup:rannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged es ablishment, not against any particular project, their serv ( :s ought to have been regularized under the Governmenl ilstructions and even as per the decision of this Coun in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Cour: i1 the said decision has laid down that in case services rave been rendered for more than ten years without the over of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the ;ervices be regularized of such employees. In the facts , f the case, those employees who have worked for ten y: rrs or more should have been regularized. It would not b I proper to regulate them for consideration of regularizat r n as others have been regularized, we direct that their ;,:rvices be l SN,J wP 8778 2023 treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly beFore attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the reoular establishment and the services f the work-cha roed establishment shall be counted as o ual ifvinq service for ouroose of oension." m the da red b e

8. The oex Court in the c se of Dharwad District PWD Literate Dailv Waoe Emolovees Association Vs State of Ka rnata k reDorted in 1990(2 ) SCC Paoe 396 laid o ri nciole that the State should not k eD a Derson in tem DOrarv or adhoc service for lono oeriod and have to treat such Dersons a5 requla r one.

9. Pa ra No.53 of the of the iudqment of the Aoex Co urt in the tate of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi da ted 10.04.2 006 reDorted in (2OO6) 4 ScC 1 is extra cted hereu nd er: - 1 "53. One asDect needs to be clarified. There mav be cases where irreqular Doointments (not illeoal aDDOintments ) as exolain ed in S.V. NaravanaoDa I scR R.N. n r 19 ao (a\ cr^a En 7 1 caa 409 't a aA B.N. Na ria)t and referred to in Dara 15 above, of dulv q alified Dersons in dulv sancti oned vacant DOSTS miq ht have ade and the emolovees have continued to work for ten vears or more but witho t the interv ntion of ord ers of the courts or of tribu na ls. The ouestion of reo la rization of the services f such a L972 n a 8 SN,J wP 3778 2023 l- I emolovees mav h ve to be consider( I on merits in the lioht of the ori cioles settled bv t is Court in the cases abovereferred to and in thr liqht of this iudqment. In that context, the Unio of In ia, the State Governme nts and their ir trumentalities should take steos to reoularize -time measure, the services of such irueoul ointed who have worked for ten vears ot more in duly sanctioned Dosts but not under cover c f orders of the courts or of tribunal s and should furt h -.r ensure that reou lar recruitments are ndertake t _ to fill those vacant sanctioned oosts that require l o be filled up, in cases where temDorarv em oloyeescrdailvwaqers _ lust be set in are bein o now em lo ed. The ro motion within six months from this da .! ! a D

10. The iudqment of the Apex Court dat( dl 20,12.2024 re Dorted an 2024 LawSuit sc ( 12O9 in Jir o Anita and others v Union of India and others, an ( the relevant a h Nos.12 24 26 27 an 2 i_ rc_lxtle-cEcd hereunder: "12. Despite being labelled as "pir workers," the appellants performerl essential tasks on a daily and cor',1 basis over extensive periods, rangin over a decade to nearly two decades engagement was not sporadic or terr in nature, instead, it was recurrent, r and akin to the responsibilities tl associated with sanctioned posts. M() the respondents did not engage ant personnel for these tasks durirr appellants tenure, underscorinll indispensable nature of their work. 1:-time inuous I from Their pora ry :gular, pically 'eover, , the

13. these were not re The claimb v the resoonder qular posts lacks rr | 9 that ! dt __as 9 SN,J wP 8778 2023 the ature of the work oerformed bv the aDoella ts was oerennial a nd fundam ental to the functionino of the offices. The recurrin s nature of these duties necessitates their classification 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 after the 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 certain 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 tn rectifvino such miscl assification sa nd ensuri o that workers 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 l0 SN,J \!P 3173 2023 "irregular" often misinterpreted or misapplied . deny legitimate claims of long serving employ: :;. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" appoir rnents. It cateoorica lvh eld that emolor / |es tn irreqular appointments, who were en( 1 rrted in dulv sa ncti on ed oosts and had served continuouslv for ore than ten vears; should be considered for reqularization as l One- time measure. However , the laudable r tent oF the judgment is being subverted when in1; itutions rely on its dicta to indiscrim inately r€j ),:t the claims of employees, even in cases whr: e their appointments are not illegal, but me,re ), lack adherence to procedural formalities. Gov( rnment departments often cite the judgment in Ur r,: Devi (supra) to argue that no vested ii Jrt to regularization exists for temporary err | lrtyees, judgment's €,xplicit overlooking the acknowledgment of cases where regulari I rl.ion is appropriate. This selective aoolication ! istorts the iudoment's soi rit and DurDose. eff e *I{ely weaoonizino it aoainst emolovees w] 11 have rendered indisoensable services decades. 27. In light of these considerations in our opinion, it is imperative for gov: rrment departments to lead by example in provi J r g fair and stable employment. Engaging worke r ; on a temporary basis for extended periods, e; rr:cially when their roles are integral to the organi artion's functioning, not only contravenes interr ational labour standards but also exposes the orgEIization to legal challenges and undermines enr lloyee morale. By ensuring fair empll /ment practices, government institution:; can reduce the burden of unnecessary Iitir ation, promote job security, and upho I principles of justice and fairness th;r they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and s:ts a positive precedent for the private se( .or to 1l SN,J \NP 8778 202.3 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 Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 .lO.20lB are quashed; The aooella nts shall be taken ii. on dutv forthwith and their services requla ised forthwith. However, the aDD llants shall not be entitled Decu n ta rv benefits/back wa es for the oeriod thev have not wo rked for but would be entitled to continuitv of services for the said oeriod and the same would be counted for their post- retiral benefits."

11. The Judoment of the ADex Court dated 31.O1.2O25 reoorted in 2025 INSC 144 in .SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD". in oarticular. the relevant Dara Nos.15 to 19 are extracte d hereu n der: etimes It is manifest that the Aooellant Workmen '15. continuouslv rendered their services over several v n if certain m lure to fU rnish such records- the Emplove r's desDite directions todo so-allows an adverse la bou r i nference vvel l-esta blish d w ren und er t2 SN,J \\? 8778 2023 m cr al i u risorudenc e. Indian labour law strr ,n sfavors DerDetual dailv-waoe or co ntractual 31 oaqements in ct rcu mstances w ere the work is rmanent in nature. Morallv and leqallv, ( r's who fu lfil worl.r € ar after vear n oin r cannot be dismissed summarilv 16 _ dispensable, oartic larlv in the absence ofaq ent ine contractor aoreement. At this juncture, it would tr appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefrrr -,: "temporary,. employment practices as done by a rece t jr-rdgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India n the following parag ra phs: "22. The pervasive misuse oF tempor t -y employment contracts, as exemplified in this rase, reflects a broader systemic issue that a: rersely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector/ the rise of the gig econorr \ has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of bene'i :;, job security, and fair treatment. Such practi. ls have been criticized for exploiting workers e r cl undermining labour standards. Government instit-.ions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairr ):lS 6od justice, bear an even greater responsibilit/ to avoid such exploitative employment practice:r, When public sector entities engage in misusr: of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the deri - mental trends observed in the gig economy bu, also sets a concerning precedent that can erode 1 ublic trust in governmental operations.

25. It is a disconcerting reality 1.tat temporary employees, particularly in governrrt rt institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exf oitation. While the foundational purpose of tempora - contracts may have been to address short-term or leasonal needs, they have increasingly become a me: ranism to 2024 13 SN,J wP 8'.7'18 2023 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: o Misuse of "Tempora rv" Labels: Emolovees a f r work that is ess n r rrt n and inteqral to the functioninq of an institution labelled as "temoorarv" or are often "contractua1," even w en their roles mirror reoular em olovees. Such misclassifica tion deorives workers of the dionity- secu ritv, and benefits that reoular re entitled to, desoite oerforminq emolovees identic I 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 n ifica nt. . 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 14 SN.J wP 3r 78 2023 cases of illness, retirement, circu msta nces. " u nforeseen the Employer's . Co n seq ue n tly, l,:s with some tably, this only \ruorkmen were r:ertain status. )rtance of their )1, it failed to 1i'ul back wages l tory violation

16. The High Court did acknowledge inabilrty to justify these abrupt terminatiorl it ordered re-engagement on daily w;l measure of parity in minimum pay. Regr: perpetuated precariousness: the Appella nt left in a marginally improved yet still rt While the High Court recognized the imlt work and hinted at eventual regularlza:i afford them continuity of service or meanin commensurate with the degree of stir evident on record. L7. In light of these considerations, he Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workr r,:n stands in violation oF the most basic labour law prin< ples. Once it is established that their services were ter^ inated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.p. industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev weli enqaoed in essential, oerennial duties, these wor! 1rs cannot be releo ated to oeroetual un rtaintv. !\ hile concerns of munaciDa! budoet and com liance with I recru itm nt rules merit cons ideration, concern do not absolve the Emolover of statut,r "-Y-sElgatlsns or neoate eouitable Indeed, bu rea u cra tic limitations can ot trumo he leo itimate riohts of workmen who have served c3 ntinuouslv in de facto reqular rol s for an ext entitleme 1 ls. nded r: rriod. l-:- I5 SN,J wP 8778 2023 to the 18. The imouoned order of the Hiqh Cou extent thev confine the Aooellant Workmen to futu re dailv-waqe enoaoement without continuitv or meaninofu! back waoes, is herebv set a side with the followino i rections: 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, is declared illegal. AII orders or 1947 , communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, 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 this judgment. Their entire oeriod of absence (from th date of +arminatio rr rr6+il rr' tual rai rr c+rla ment \ chrll counted Ior continuitv of service and all conseo ential benefits, such as senioritv and elioibilit v for oromotion if anv. III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o 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. v. Th initiate a fair and transparent Drocess for reoulari zino the Aooellan t Workmen within six mont s from the date of re i nstatement dulv consl erinq the fact that thev have oerform ed r ts nd en n o r I a! ess! n Emolover shall not impos rizatio ed ucatio nal or t6 SN,J wP 8778 2023 if such rocedural cri \ requirements were never aE lied to th Aopellant Workmen or to silq situated reqular emolovees in the Dast, To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for srl h duties qxist or are reouired. the Resoondenl o er shall exoedite all necessarv administt rve Drocesses m lvees are not o indefinitelv retained on dailv wa, esc n rar statutorv and e ensure thes tatrl norm s. dU : E n t:

19. In view of the above, the appea rs) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appe. lrs) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed." L2. The Aoex Court in a iudo ment reDor' :d in (2OL7 )1 S u D reme Court Case 148, in Sta ofP urr ab and others vs iaoiit Sinoh and others at Paras 54 an (1)(2)(3), of the said iudq ment observed a s _u!!-deE ( its sub-oaras "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, upon the above controversy had conclude,l employees were not entitled to the minimum c scale, merely for the reason, that the activ L daily-wagers and regular employees were simi however, made two exceptions, Temporary e. in either of the two exceptions, were held ert the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regu,t exceptions recorded by the full bench of the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:. vhile adjudicating that temporary ' the regular pay- es carried on by tr. The full bench Stloyees, who fell itled to wages at , employees. The ligh Court in the "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or con:, actual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, ,' appointed after undergoing a selection process based t con fairness and equality of opportunity to all other el lible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regrt tr pay scale from the date of engagement. t7 SN,J wP 8778 2023 b b nalianal n i tn the s (2) But if dailv waoers. ad hoc or contractual s are not aD ointed aoainst reoular aDDOtn osts and thetrs e rutces are availed sanctIoned Government or its instrumen talities for a sufficient lons period i. e. for 7O vears, such dailv waoers. ad hoc or contractual aDDointees shall be entitled to h ut an allowances on the assumDtion th t work of riod of time. an eoui ble rioht is such lono reoularization, if anv, mav have to separatelv in terms of legallv permissible scheme. ers ns. Their c vIn worked nature is a considered ted in su of th (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 iudqment of the Aoex Court reDort d in 201O(9) sCC 247 between: State of Karnataka and others v M.L.Kesari and others, in oarticular, paras 4 to 9 reads as u n der:

4. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadev i was rendered on 10.4.2006 ( oorted in 2006 G) SCC 1). In that case, a 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 manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumenta lities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Coutt further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage l8 SN,J wP 8778 2023 employee does not have a legal right to bc rnade permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the t ttevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Consl lution. This Court however made one exception to the abot,t, position and the same is extracted below : Z I ! 2 ,] ! I a 7972 "53. One asDect needs to e clarific I ma be cases where irreoular aooointm<1 I f..s not illeoal a DDoi ntments) as exolained in S. t. Nara NADDA 11967 (1) SCR .1 81, R.N. Naniund 7 SCC 4O9l and B.N. Naoaraian f79 ) (4) SCc 5071 and referred to in oara 7 ! duly qualified above. Dersons in dulv sanctioned vacant t tsts mioh t have been made and the emo lovees he e continued to rs or t without the interven onof orders of e court: or of tri.buna ls. The ou estion of tedula tion of :le_ServEeS__o! such emplovees mav have to be considered on the lioht of the orincioles settled merits Court in the cases abovereferred tc,_ \nd in the lioht the Union of the State Governmen !;_ and Ind ia. ke sfeps o teou rize as instru me ntalities should a one-time measure. the services ol ;uch irreoularly aDDointed, who have worked for te vears or more in dulv sanctioned Dosts but not - LlCerJoyer--eI rls and should further ensure that ular rel ruitme ts are undertaken to fill those vacant se Dgliooed-geEt1 cases where temDorarv emolo vees or dailv wa' lers a now em loved. The oro within six months from th must lt date..... t in motio rs of h his u m e filled n that rts or ; I I 1 t "5. It is evident from the above that thet: is an exception to the general principles against 'regularizatl r,' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (i) The employee concerned should have work. I for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benef,: or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In )ther words, the State Government or its instrumentality shoutr have employed the employee and continued him in seruice voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years, (ii) The appointment of such employee shoL t t not be ittegat, even if irregular. Where the appointments )-e not made or t9 SN,J wP 8118 2023 I tme me ent or ru menta litv, for more than urts or iiralt na continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal' But where the person employed possessed the prescribed 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 irregular. the concerned (iii) Umadevi casts a dutv uDon to take steDs to Go of those tteoularlv ao tn ted reoularize the serv n vears emolovees who had serve withou the benefit or orotection of anv interim o ers of Umadev s directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months m the date of decision ( rendered on 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 L)madevi, 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 tribunats and subiect 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, regularize their services. 7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in lJmadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad - hoc/casua I employees were stitl pending before Coutts. Consequently, several departments and instru mentalities did not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumenta lities undeftook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in cou rts 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 llmadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merelY because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily' wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 70 years of continuous sen/ice as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any 20 SN,J wP Ir778 2023 that th e employer had held the one-time exercise in :,,rms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of sc,t te employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Uma levit the employer concerned should consider their cases also, a a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise ,vill be concluded only when ail the employees who are entitlct to be constdered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so consicc red. 8, The o iect behind the sa d directic '1 _ in oara 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensurt have Dut in more than ten rs of c< ,! ttinuous service without the Drotection of anv interim ot e urts or '! tribunals. before the date of decision 1t Umadevi was rendered, are considered for reoulariz atjon_j_e_Jbw__ot their lono service, Second 't'sufg=Jbe!--the deDartm ents / instrumentali s do not _ pgrpgtuate_Jbe. oractice of emolovino oersons on _ dailv- oe/ ad- hoc/casu I for lono Deriods and tI en periodically reoularize them on the qround that thel{ have se ed for more than ten vea 'itutional or statu rv Dfovtstons re tino to l rcruitment and EDDO ,n tment. The true effect of the dire ction is that all o have worked for mote that Dersons ,_ teO_yeAIS--aS__e_n 70,4,2006 (the date of dec l_ tvil without the n in Uma. Drotection of anv in rim order of anv co , rt or tribunal, in vaca nt Dosts, Dossessino the ualifica on, are uisite entitled t be considered for ularizatt ( e fact tha the emolover has not un rtaken s !:h exercise of rea, ularization with n stx mon sof he dec ton rn Umadevi or that such exercise s una ettaken onlv in a limited few. will not disentitle such reoard emplovees, the ridht to be considered ,g7 reoularization in terms of the above directions in ltmad,= frasao ne-time measure. therebv de isto€ tino t !

9. These appeals have been pending for mor t than four years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appeltar t (Zila panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases ct respondents of regularization within six months of the decisi tn in Llmadevi or thereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High Court hai cases of respondents should be considered tr law. The only further direction that needs bcl Umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gd undertake an exercise within six monthst a ( regularization exercise, to find out whether ta clirected that the accordance with Eiven, in view of lag should now eneral one- time ?re are any daily 2l SN,J wP 8778 2023 wage/casual/ad-hoc emptoyees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) tulfill 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 tJmadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the emptoyees 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. L4. In the iudqment of the Aoex Court in NihaI Sinoh and others v. State of P uniab reDo ed in (2013) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Specia! 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 22 SN,J wP 8778 2023 relationship, its action is arbitrary. It;t so refused to ! lctione Dosts accept the d efence that there were no si and so there was iustification for the : ate to utili servtces of larqe number of Deoole like th': -alpclla.nts-lqr d ecad es. It held that "sanctioned posts dr, not fall from heaven" and that the State has to crei! e them bva , of need. Referrino to Umadevt conscious choice on the basis of some ratior al asse ssment it held thal - Lhe apoellants their initial before them were not arbitrarilv It aDDointment was nof an 'irreo ular'appoin' nent as it had been made in accorda nce with the statu t )rv Dr prescribed under cannot be heard to av that thev are not entitled to be absorbed into the services of the State _ Ln Dermanent ba sis as. accordino t it, their aoo intmen s were ourelv the Police Act, 1861, : nd the S ! temoorarv and not aqainst anv sa nctioned _ posts created by the State. It was held that the iudomel rt in Umadevi ce for ex te and its instru entalities and neith er the Giovernment of P U nI a b nor those o u b ic sect(rr Banks can c1 ntinue such a practice inconsistent with their oblioation un ron tn L accordance with lhqConstitution. SN,J wP 8178 7023

15. T e iudoment of the ADex Court reDorted in 2O15 ivasulu and others v SCC On line SC 1797 between B.Sri Nellore Municioal Co ooration Reo. bv its Commissio ner, Nellore District, Andh ra Pradesh an others, in oarticular pa ras 7 and 8 reads as under: (7) We find it difficult to acceDt the rea soninq adoD ted bv the Hiqh Court. The riqht of the aDDellants to seek requ rization flows from the G.O No.212 dated 22.4.1994. The aooellant have been in service of the first resoondent not onlv orl r to the issuance of the said G. O. but even subseouent to the issue of G.O. till todav. 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 regutarising 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 betatedly, in our opinion, is not iustified. 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/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors, 2009 (8) SCC 480.

16. In Am arkant Rai v State of Bihar reoorted (2015) 8 SCC 265. the Suoreme Court held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are arregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure securitv of of those erson who h s 24 SN,J wP 8778 2023 Government and their instru mentalities fo1 more than ten vea rs". In that case, emolovee was worki q for 29 vea rs. r This decision aDoroves ea rlier vtew _ _e_xp_rCssed__in M.L.Ke sa ri extracted above. L7, I n State of Jarkhand v Kamal Pras i d reDo rted in (20L4) 7SCC2 23 simila r vtew was Eaken bv the Su oreme Court an d it was he ld as follows : s l'47.... rn view of the cateoori,cal findin of fact on the relevant contentious issue that the respol dent emplovees have continued in their service for more than 7 O vears nct ,12 laid down bv I Court in Umadevi case I State of Karn taka v Umadevi 20 6 tra 53 so uarelv n Bench of the ,es The Court has riohtlv held that t re res ondent s are enti d for the rel,ief, the-"ame-9aon9!ne Hioh intertered with bv this Court," cc [&s e CC7: resent re t t v, (

18. The Judgment of this Court date t 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.276O2 ol 2O19 whi :h pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Laksl" mi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda E istrict, which had been upheld by the Division Bencl of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2023 dated 10.10.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated

09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 ol 2024. /---=- 25 SN,J wP E778 2023

19. The iudqment of the Aoex Court in Hari Krishna dir Tru V ate of M har tra and h AIR 2O2 reme Cou 9 and in icu la r os.1OO an 1 held as f llow " 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 wh has fail d to exercise or has wronolv xercised d iscretion conferred uoon it bv a statute, or a rule, or a oolicv dectston of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide, or on i rreleva nt con sideration. e Governm n 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. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judoment dated 10.06.2 13 oassed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O and 854 ot 2O12 while uoholdino the Judqment dated O8.09.2010 a 24377 ot 2 7 .No.4 t observed as under:- "Further, it is manifest from the material on record that the services of the similarly placed persons who approached the law Courts were regularized. The a ppellan t-Corporation also issued various office orders/circu lars dated 20.12.1989, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2OO9 for regularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25- T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for such a long and \ 26 SN,J wP 8778 _2023 continuous period of time on casual basis is-n9!tr rg but unfair labour practice attracting in" piouitiont of Secl.i'r r,25-T of the ff;:, H;;;.*o si"dr" j'ise while relvins orr the decisions s are entitled of the Apex court, rightly itiJin"l trt" ;; ':;n;,'.;;i; - u,'air"'tl*J in 1r'e impuened : 'rlers' as the Iearned single Judge tontia"'"a all the aspects cf the matter in detail, in the proper p"t'ptiti'"' which' in our. cc rsidered view il:J l,;; *ur.5nilnt"'r"rence in these appeals " 'etpo'id,'t'' 2L. T eDi nBe of th n l': i Judq ent

19. 9. 20L7 d te reoortedi n2o18 (2 )AL D DAoe 28 assed ln .P .No .272 IL of 20L7 at DA ra 16 lnd ra 18 a o se e a un er: - rite that the law declared bY the S " 16. It IS t t the countrY under Artlc binding throughou It is noteworthY that t Constitution of India ' juds ment in lJma Devi's case (supra), was provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms 22.4.1994, were in existence. The Su Pre rr denouncing the Practice of regularization and persons, who entered service th rough back d' go-bye to the due Procedure Prescribed for public Posts, bsorption/regul arization of those, who werr a period of not les s than 10 Years. It has given regard to all the State Gov ernments and a ls< The SuPreme Court is P resu med to be consciou enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executi' G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994, while git Para No.53 of the judg ment in lJma Devi's t stilt, it has not made anY excePtion ln favour of regularization/ i State enactments banning o G 9 4 w t B consciouslY ordered r 4. h c. I, a 2 u I e o 9 nt n e s r M Pa (su Dra ). It ts, n n t e 2 d r o re. no e o 4 e m s 22 .19 I ) ) { ( z ) ) l )'eme Court is , 141 of the the time the rendered. the N|o.212, dated Court, while absorPtion of f )rs by giving a rpointments to crr one-time 'working for a irections in this I.)nion of I ndia. c,f various State : orders such as rg directions in se (suPra ). But t'e States where rs;orption exist. ,U4l2,.-daled 4dth---ar-dihesnot ,r lssccd-bJ-lhc i's i e issibl e for the r () 19 94 an G. o. o f qulari n U a ! ! I ) ( ) Ir L f 27 SN,J wP 8778 2023 criteria la id down in Para N -53 of the iudome Devi's case r t Uma n s to con

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 21.6.2OL7, in OA No.1442 of 2074, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ Detition is allowed with the direction to the n of the servic n aoainst the existinq vaca ncies of Work the oetitione aDDoint them subiect to their satisfuano InsDectors an the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the iudoment in (suora). This orocess mus be comoleted Uma Devi's ca within two mo nth s from the date of recei t of a coov of this o der."

22. The Division Bench of this Court in ts -Iudoment dated 21.O4.202 O oassed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O 20 in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.23057 of 2O1 9 reported in 2O 20(4)ALD Daqe 3 79atoa as 45 r 48 and ara 5O obse rveda s under:- D "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the year 2000. They have been conttnuously working without any Court orders In their favour from 1990 till date. 48. It is not known whv the 1st resDondent has not followed the d ecision in Uma Devi's case (suora), as one-time exercise of preoarino the list of dailv waoe f m without the in rvention of the Courts and Tribunals as on 1O.4.2O06 and subiect them to a Drocess verification as to whether thev are workino aoainst vac nt Dosts and possess requisite oualifications for the posts, and if so, reoularize therr servrces. inM L. Kesar r more t ees w n un h k r

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 74, 16 and 2l of the Constitution of India; the e basis resoondents are directed to reo ula rize on one- petitioners' services from the date each of the petitioners 28 SN.J \\,P 8778 202i complete 10 years of service on dailv, ages-ftqro_lhe initial dates of their a DDoi ntment. B ut, tl 1y shall not be entit ed to anv monetarv relief. The said ( tercise sh all be do ne with tn two ( 2) weeks from t e da ! of re l 4 of th et."

23. This Court o ines that res onde nts fa i ledtodi scha roe their dutv in examtnin q in the Dres( nt case, rizati t tioners'servtces, who is workino a s full to consider their reo u est and further :rme swee Der _ gr treat the temoorarv servr ce of the Detitio ers In hel ade oost of full time weeDer as reo ular on e for al [ -.purooses bv qrantinq last qrade pav with peraodicat incr: ngnl-feylggd from time to time from the date of appoir! t or ,s :m n of h Deti tio n e rs. rn accordance to law. t ration

24. Th s Cou rt ooines that oetition ers ar : entitled for I,raved for in the oresent Writ Petiti ob se rva tio sof I the relief as n rn vrew of the tnv rtot 1;- iudoments of the ench of this Cou rt in the Judo men E i referred to ( referred to and extract above) and the view he Ao x Cou D ivision and extracted above.

25. Takinq in considera tion: - 29 SN,J wP 8778 2023 a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case' b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4. c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: ix2o2o) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 2o10(9) scc247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC t797 (ix) (201s) I scc 26s (x) (2oL4) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 ot 2O10 and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dated 08.09.2010 i0 SN.I wP 8778 20tl passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.il r.48 of 2O08 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated L9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 ol 2017 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this 3ourt dated

21.04.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in :L of 2019 and W.P.No.23057 of 2OL9 (referred to and extrar ted above). g) In the light of discussion and conctusion :s arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the presenl order. The Writ Petition is allowed, the or1 ltioners a re directed t Dut-forth th e claim of the o litioners for reo u la ri zation of oetitioners' services, and : so the claim of the oetitioners to treat the temoorarv st: vices of the e r as reqular in the last st of w etition r I r r rr le Day with oeriodical incr ements revised from time to I i ne-frsrLlbe f aooointme t of the ition r:. 9__a!!-d__all o uential benefits. dulv enclosino all he releva nt documents in support of petitioners' case ari o ut-forth in 31 SN,J wP 8778 2023 the Dresent writ oetition, within a Deriod of one Ol) week from the date of receiot of coov of the order and the resoo n dents shall examine a nd consider the same tn acco rda nce to law, in confor itv with orincioles of natural iustice bv providinq an o o oortu n itv of oersonal he rino to f he rtetiti on ers ln +arms of ord arc rrlccad b the Su Court in Uma Devi's case reDortedin 2006(4) SCC Paoe 1. the iudqment passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 dated 08.o9.201 O reoorted in 2O11 (1) ALD, Paqe 234 and as confirm ed in W.A.No.7 82 of 2O1O dated 1O.06.2O13 . and also as oer Division Bench Judqmen t of this Court dated t9.o9.20L7 Dassed in W.P.No.27 217 of 2OO7 re Dorted in 2018(2)ALD Daoe 2A2 and a lso the Divisio n Bench Judqment of this Court dated 21,O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2 O2O in 1 of 2O19 in W.P.No,23O5 of 2O19 reDorted in 2O2O(4)ALD oaoe 379 which had atta i ned finalitv, within a oeriod of four (O4) wee ks from the date of receiDt of a coov of this order, dulv takinq into consid ration the observations and the law laid down bv the A x Court in the various iudqm ents (referred to and d above), and in Darticula r. oara No.53 of the iudqme nt of the ADex Court in the case of State of SN,J wP 8778 202i Karna t,a v. Uma De ate the decision to the petitioners. However, ther', r shall be no and dulv conl n order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendin; in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// sd/ A . VI. JAWAHAR REDDY ;;ISTANT REGISTRAR /L SECTION OFFICER To One fair copy to the HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUtl :PALLI NANDA (For Her LordshiP's Kind Perus I l't 1 The Principal Secretary, The State of Telangana, Pir <;haayth Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Principal Secretary, The State of Telangana F:inance and Planning Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. The Prl. Secretary to Government, The State o' '-elangana, Education . Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

4. The Chief Executive Officer, The, Zilla Praja Parislr cl, Nizamabad District, N izamabad. 5. 11 L.R. Copies. 6. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of La'r Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

7. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Associatic r Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad B. One CC to Sri Ch. Ganesh, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP for Services-|, High Court for the Stale of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

10. One CC to Sri Pradeep Reddy Kafta, Standing Count;r I [OPUC]

11.Two CD Copies T J/MP -w HIGH COURT DATED:251A712025 ORDER WP.No.8778 of 2023 '1 HEU t4 (J Y ii:g I ,) s t t , Tc'n *:7) ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS F---> () I