The High Court · 2025

Office, High Court Buildings, Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandam us: ...RESPONDENTS i) ii) declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing the petitioner's services w.e.f . 10-04-2006, as illegal and arbitrary consequently direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner's services w.e.f. 10-04-2006 and to pay regular scale of pay from the date of his initiai appointment, duly granting all other consequential and attendant benefits including back wages lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circtrmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Cot rl may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the regular scale of pay attachr:d to the last grade service, to the petitioner, pending disposal of the above writ p€,tition Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KRISHNA KUMAR, APPEAII|NG ON BEHALF OF SRI KVASUDEVAREDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES lll The Court made the following: ORDER 1 i'g^ wp,6029 2018 NBK, J TH E HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.6029 of 2018 ORDER: The case of the petitioner, precisely as per the writ affidavit, is that he passed l0th class, and was appointed as a Full Time Contingent worker (Sweeper) in the Office of Govemment Pleader, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad, vide Proceedings dated 08.01.1993 in the pay of Rs.261 per month with allowances as admissible under the Rules. His pay has been raised from time to tirne and is drawing Rs.2,600 per month as of January 20 I l. It is his grievance that though more than two decades have passed, his services have not been regularised in spite of arising of regular vacancies and despite repeated representations to the respondent-authorities.

2. Heard Mr. Krishna Kumar, leamed counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. K. Vasudeva Reddy, leamed counsel on record for the petitioner; and leamed Govemment Pleader tbr Services-Ill. Perused the record.

3. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 14.03.2018, directed that the petitioner be paid minimum of the tirne-scale attached to the post of Sweeper i Last Grade Service in the State Govemment until further orders.

4. At the outset, it is to be noted that the petitioner was appointed as Full Time contingent worker vide Proceedings No.8/Admn/93 dated 08.01.1993 (at page No.11 of the writ petition) issued by the Superintendent, Special Officer/Government Pleaders' Office, High Court Buildings' Further, the other material papers filed with the writ petition, i.e., letter No.93lAdmn. 1l2Ol3 dated I1.08.2013 (at page No-20 of the writ petition), and the letter No.4llAdmn.ll2\l2 dated 30.03'2012 with the enclosed 2 wp 6029_2018 NBK,I document titled "Details of indiviudals working on 25.i 1.1993" (at page No. 17 of the writ petition) shows that the petitioner-B. Rarnakrishna is stated to have been appointed on 08.0 1.1993 as Full time contingent worker and the wages drawn by him is Rs.2,600. Further, the Secretarl,to Govemment, Legal Affairs, vide Memorandum No.9008/292l2004 dated 28.01.2005 sought information with regard to the petitioner, and another employee, for the purpose of regularising their services in Govemmerrt Pleaders Office; and also the Proceedings No.93lAdmn-ll/93 dated 17.03.1993 issued by the Special Officer, Government Pleaders' Office, High Court Buildings. show that the petitioner is mentioned at Serial No.l and that he is a Full Time Contingent Employee in the Chambers of Government P leaders for Excise, Endowments, Transport, Revenue, C.T., Civil Supplies and Irrigation; and two other part-time employees allocated other works in the Govemment Pleaders Offlce. Further, the petitioner submitted representation dated

01.12.2004 and representation dated 02.07.2013 (at page ]'los. l4 and 18 of the writ petition) recluesting the authorities to absorb him in the Class-IV employees' category on par with other contract employees who were newly appointed and drawing higher pay tl.ran the petitioner.

5. It is relevant to note that these documents ale admittedly the proceedings issued by the respondent-authorities and ther,: is no dispute that the petitioner has been serving as a fuil-time contingent enrployee for close to three decades now.

6. Further, it may be noted that this Court, at the lequest of learned Assistant Govemment Pleader, on several occasion:r earlier i.e., on

03.0 t.2023, 3 t .0 | .2023, I 4.02.2023, 28.02.2023, 2 | .03.2023, 04.09.2024 and20.09.2024, adjoumed the matter for filing counter aifidavit. When the r' 7 3 wp 5O29_2018 NBK, J matter is called on 01-04.2025, another adjoumment was soughr for filing counter affidavit, however no counter affidavit has been filed till today. 7. Having considered the submissions of the reamed counser for the petitioner, and perused the indisputable documents filed by the petitioner with the writ petition as stated above, it stands as an admitted fact that the petitioner has been appointed as Full-time contingent Employee in the year 1993, and has been discharging duties as Sweeper in the Govemment Pleaders office ever since. Further, there has been. efforts and huge correspondence between the respondent-authorities for decades (as can be seen from various proceedings mentioned above). The correspondence reveal that the Secretary to the Government, Legal Affairs, has written to the Govemment Pleaders Office, vide Memo dated 2g.01.2005 regularising the services ol the petitioner, however, for reasons discemible from the record, the petitioner's regularisation has been detayed by more than two decades. It may be noted that the Govemment, being a model employer, cannot deprive a workman the benefit of service after utilising his services for decades.

8. At this juncture, it is relevanr to refer to the judgment of Hon,ble Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of Indial, wherein the apex Court, by referring to State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi2, held as follows: " 26. While the judgment in {Jmadevi (supra) soughr tu curtoil rhe practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to den1, legitimate claims of long_ serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish benuein "illegal" and " irregular " appointments. It categorically held that emplol,ee5 in irregular appoinlments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served coittinuously for more rha, tin 12024 tNSc 1034 , (200G) 4 scc 1 t.'.lrSri* 4 wp_6029 2018 N8K, J E years, should be considered for regularizalion u; o one-tinrc measure- Hou,ever, the laudable intent of the judgtni:nt is being subverted whe'n institutions relv on its dicta to intli.;criminotelv reject the cloims of employees, even in coses wltet e their appointments ure not illegal, but merelv lack tt(therence to procedural formalitie.s. Government departments oli,.:n cite the .judgment in Ltmadevi (supra) to orgue thot no \(\t?d right to regularization exists for tempororv emplo1,sg5, ot,L'rlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where reqularizalion is appropriote This selective application dislort-s tl,t judgmenl's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing il against employees vrho have rendered indispensable services over decatl '.s.

27. In light of these consideralions, in our opinion, it i.s imtrterative for government deportment.s to lead bt' exomplc in lrttvidinz Jair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a lempo,-(,n. hasisfor ertended periods, especially tthen tlrcir roles are intt.gral b the organization's funclioning, not onlv conlravenes it,tern0tionol labour standards but also erposes lhe organizut,ort b legal challenges and undermines emplovee morale. By , ttsuring fair employmenl pt octices, government in.ttitutions cott '.edtr:e the burden of unnecessory litigatiott. promote job securit.t. tntl uphold the principles ofjustice andftirness that they ore meuttt to entbody. This approach aligns with internotional stan(lard.\ (tnd .\ets o positive precedent for the private sector to .fbll,n,, Lherebv contributing to the overall beltermenl of lobour prd:tices in the countr)t. "

9. Considering the submissions and the facts of the crrse at hand, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit ( ase to exercise extraordinary j urisd iction under Article 226 of the Const ir u tion to d irect the respondent-authorities to regularise the services of the petitioner.

10. ln that.view of the matter, the l.t respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders regularising the services of the petitioner rvithin six weeks from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order, in the appropriate category and pay-scale as applicable to the petitioner. IIre pctitioner shall not claim retrospective rnonetary benelits/pay diff-erence r,,,lating to the past 5 wp 6029 2018 NBK, ] service on account of this order. However, in view of the settled law that the past services rendered prior to regularisation are to be counted towards pension and retirement benefits, the services rendered by the petitioner since 08.01.1993 until the date of regularisarion shail be counted as qualifiing service for pension and retirement beneflts in accordance with law. I l. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed as directed above. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness The Hon'ble SUJOY PAUL, The Acting Chief Justice on this Tuesday, The Fifteenth Day Of April, Two Thousand And Twenty Five Sd/-L.VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1 The Secretary to Government, Leg Secretariat Buildings, The State of T al Affairs, Legislative Affairs and Justice, elangana, Hyderabad.

2. The Secretary, Law (LA) Telangana, Hyderabad. 3. The Secretary, Finance Telangana, Hyderabad. Department, Secretariat Buildings, State of Department, Secretariat Buildings, State of

4. The Administrator, Government Pleaders Office, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

5. One CC to SRl. K VASUDEVA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES lll ,High Court for the State of Telangana [our]

7. Two CD Copies PVL PMK HIGH COURT DATED:1510412025 l ORDER WP.No.6029 of 2018 r- r- o" + o ,J 1t lnu 2p5 ,+ * -) ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 18 ?r( €