ON NO v. Rural Employment Department

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioners though they rendered more than 3 decades service as sweepers against clear vacancy under the control of the respondents and even not paying Minimum Time Scale attached to the said post and being paid only paltry wages is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 2210411994 and the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.Srini,rasulus case and also recent judgment in WP.No.33936 of 2011 and batch, dal"-d 21512O18 and WP.No.3644 of 2019, dated 221212O19 and consequently to direct the respondents herein to regularize their services from the date of completion of 5 years initial services with all consequential monetary benefits with arrears of pay. Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1st respondent herein to accord permission to the 3rd respondent for regularization of the services of the petitioners and till regularization of their services arrange to pay the Minimum Time Scale attached to the post including usual allowances of DA, HRA, CCA held by the petitioners, pending the disposal of the above wit petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI MOHD SUBHAN PASHA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,3 to 5: SRI R.CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY, GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING The Court made the following: ORDER II{ON'BLE MRS. IUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA 2 He,ard Sri Mohd. Subhan Pasha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri R.Chandra Shekar Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5 and learned Assistant Government Pteader for Finance and Planning appearing on behalf of resPondent No.2.

2. "...tc, issue an order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of tfre respondents in not regularizing the services of the petit:ioners though they i'endered more than 3 decades service as Sweepers against clear vacancy under the control of the respondents and even not paying Minirnum Time Scale attached to the said post and being paid only paltry wages is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994 and the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.Srinivasulu's case and also recent judgment in WP No.33936 of 2011 and batch, dated 02'05.20i8 and WP No.3644 of 2019, dated 22.02.2019 and consequently to direct the respondents herein to regularize their services I 1 SN,J W.P.No.l0601 2023 from the date of completion of 5 years initial services with all consequential monetary benefits with arrears of pay and to pass such other and further order..." B

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the present writ petition is squarely covered by the orders of this Court dated 25.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.22305 of 2O20. SN,J W.P.No.l060l 2023 7 "36. There are some of the employees who have not been regu arized in spite of having renciered the servlces for 30- 40 o' more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendr:red for more than ten years without the cover of the Cour:'s order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more 4 SN,J W.P.No. 10601 2023 should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entifled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuati on. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if th ey have retired oualifvino service for ouroose of oension.,, t 8 e e reoular one. 9 w 1 2 n m D a e a c e d m e Vs n 5 SN,J w.P.No.10601 2023 abovereferred to and in the lioht of this iudoment. In that their instrumentalitaes should take steos to reoularaze as a one-time measure. the services of such irreoularlv appointed. who have worked for ten vears or more in dulv courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that reoular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant Sg!|ctioned posts that or dailv waoers are beino where temoorarv emDlove now emploved. The process must be set in motion withan six months from this date. ....

10. The iudoment of the Apex Court dated 20.12.2024, reported in 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1209 in Jaooo Anita and others v. Union of India and others. and the relevant paraoraph Nos.12. ,27 and 28 are extracted hereunder: "12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants performed these essentaa! tasks on a daaly and continuous basis ov€:r extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indtspensable nature of their work. 13. The claim bv the respondents that these e not reqular Dosts laeks merit, as the nature of the work oerformed bv the aooellants was Ef€!!!!ial and fundamenta the._-d!g. The recurring nature of these duties nec(:ssitates their classification as regular posts, irre!;pective of how their initial engagements were 6 SN,J W.P.No.l060l 2023 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 lg7 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 beneflts. 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 cbrresponding rights and benefits. It hiohliohts the iudiciarv's role in rectifvino such misclassifications and ensurino 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 often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It cateqoracallv held that emolovees in irreoular aooointments. who were enoaoed in dulv sanctioned oosts and had served continuouslv for more than ten vears should be consadered for 7 SN,J W.P.No.l0601 2023 reoularization as a one-tame measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted \ryhen institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where thei- appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adhr:rence to procedural formalities. Government dep;lrtments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (su6rra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgtment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is approprlate. This selective aoolication distorts the iudoment's soirit and pgoose, effectivelv we emolovees who have rendered indisoensable sel@s-9vcr-dcedes. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is irnperative for government departments to lead by exarnple in providing fair and stable employment. Engirging workers on a temporary basis for extended peri,rds, especially when their roles are integral to the orgernization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the orgErnization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment prar:tices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote iob security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairrness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to 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,20t8 are quashed; l 8 W.P.No.10601 2023 ii. The aopellants shail be taken aooellants shall not be entifled to anv pecuniarv benefits/back waqes for the oeriod they have not worked for but would b€ entitlcd to continuitw of services for the said oeriod and the same would be counted for their oost- retiral benefits."

11. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD", in particular, the relevant para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder: *15. It is manifest that the Aopellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanninq more than a decade. Even if certain failure to furnish such records-desqite diree*i6ns to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-established enqaqements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and leqallv, workers who fulfil onqoino municipal requirements year after vear cannot be dismissed summarilv as dispensable, oarticularlv in the absence of a oenuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs: d 9 SN,J W.P.No.l060l 2023 "22. The pervasive misuse of temp orarye 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 owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: |n i$ . 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. o Lack of Career progression: Temforary employees often find themselves excluded from l0 SN,J W.P.No.10601 2021 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 cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. "

15. 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 record.

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, 1942, and that thev SN,J W.P.No.l060l 2023 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, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or 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 IlL 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, t2 SN,J W.P.No.l050l 2023

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

12. "54 "Ihe Full Bench of the High Court, while adiudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay- scalet 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 Court in the impugned judgment are extraded hereunder:- l3 SN,J W.P.No.l060l 2023 "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon faimess and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale aft,er 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."

4. .4 Const.itution 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 dired their absorption, regularization or re- engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the l4 SN,J W.P.No.10601 2023 Constitution should not ordinarity issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manne+ 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 instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daity-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms ofthe relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 74 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : l5 SN,J W.P.No.l0601 2023 "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularization' enunciated in Ume'devi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the ,lnterim order.of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and contt'nuously for more than ten years. (ii1 ',r1r" appointment of such employee should not be ittegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the e,ppointments 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 withc,ut undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregutar. A!!L Umadevi casts a dutv upon the concerned Govern nt or instrumentalitv, to take steDs to reoularize the services of those irreoularlv aooointed emolovees who had served for more than ten vears courts or tribunals. as a one-time measure. llmadevi. directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision [rcdered_gn I O.4. 29O6'L 6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decisbn in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a tist of att casua,t, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribun.als and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services. tne Oenent or orotea l6 SN,J W.P.No.l060l 2023 --

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in U madevi, cases of several da ily-wage/ad - hoc/casua! em ployees were still pending before Courts. ConsequenUy, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities 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, wilt not lose their right to be considered for regularizationt 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 alt daily- wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in IO 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 lJmadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise wilt be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered. 8. The obiect behind the said direction in oara 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure that those who have put in more than ten vears of continuous service without the orotection of anv interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in llmadevi was rendered. are considered for reoularization in view of d ?ha departmenElinstrumentalities do not perpetuate the Drectice of emolo vtno rsorrs on dailv-wade/ed- hoclcasual for lono oeriods and then oeriodicallv reaularize them on the oround that thev have served for more than ten vears. therebv defeatino the constitutional or statutotv orovisions retatino to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all oersons who have worked for more than ten vears as on 70.4.2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi, without the la aaArita a,.rcrrr.o Gaz.zrn th,i < t7 SN,J W.P.No.10601 2023 r has not un protection of anv interi Vegant ,osfs,. poss€ssino e*tUea U Oe consiaerc ken such exercise of the emolove regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken onlv in reoard to a limited few. will not disentitle such emplovees. the rioht to be considered for reoularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure.

9. 1'hese appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat, Gaaag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision in lJmadevi or thereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the case:s of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umzrdevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regL,larization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fultill 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 7 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the:;aid 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 regutarization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of acco,-dingly.

14. IE_lhe iudoment of the Apex Court in Nihal Sinoh and others v. State of Puniab reDorted in (2O13) 14 c 65, the --- t8 SN,J W.P.No.10601 2023 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 relationshap, its action is arbitrary. It also refused to acceot the defence that there were no sanctioned posts and so there was iustification for the State to utilise services of laroe number of oeoole like the aooellants for decades. It held that "sancti oned oosts do not fall from heaven" and that the State has to create them bv a conscious choice on the basis of some rational asses ment of need. Referrino to Umadevi. it held that the appellants before them were not arbitrarilv chosen, their initial appointment was not rirraarrlrrr ra.rairllrlrani -G + hrel haa nm :da in :aaardanra with the statutorv orocedure orescribed under the Police Act, 1861, and the State cannot be heard to sav that thev are not entitled to be absorbed into the. services of the State on Dermanent basis as. accordino to it, their appointments were a- t9 SN,J W.P.No.l060l 2023 purelv temoorarv and not aoainst anv sanctioned posts created bv the State. It was held that the iudoment in Umadevi cannot become a licence for exoloitation bv the State and its instrumentalities and neither the Government of puniab nor those oublic sector Banks can continue such a oractice inconsistent with their oblioation to function in accordance with the Constitution. I E ?h,r rri .rf +ha Arrav a .* r.a6.rr.+arl i.r o 1 E <aa sulu and others v Nellore Online SC 1797 t{g$g!oa I Corooration Reo.bv its Commissioner, Nefiore etween B.Srini District, Andhra Pradesh and others, in particular oaras 7 and g under: r nd' tce o (7) We fin it difficult to acceDt the reason ins adoo bv the za ti, n flou,s from the G.O. No. 12 dated 22.4.7994. The a ellant n ,5S! n . till todav. The respondent Municipality being a statutory G.A body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above metltioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appettants and continued to extract work fram the appellants. 8. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appettants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justifled. In the ciraumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under app,zal by directing that the appellants, services be regutarised with effect from the date of their completing their five year conl'inuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2O0g (B) scc 480. 20 SN,J W.P.No.10601 2023

16. 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 irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and te

18. The Judgment of this Court dated 06 .L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.276O2 ot 2Ol9 which pertains to 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy regularization of Temple, 21 SN,J W.P.No.l060l 2023 Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 1O.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court of 2023 upheld dated 09.08.2O24 in SLP No.32847 of 2lJ24

19. "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 ,:f the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but

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 Grlvernment or a public authority." "Furth,:r, it is manifest from the material on record that the servic(:s of the similarly placed persons who approached the law 22 SN,J W.P.No.l060L 2023 - Courts were regularized. The appellant-Corporation also issued various office orders/circulars dated 2O.L2.1989, 11.09.L992, 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 continuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of Section 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respondents are entitled to regularization as directed in the impugned orders, as the learned single Judge considered all the aspects of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals."

21. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judoment dated 19.O9.2O17 passed in W.P.No.27217 of 2O17 reported in 2O18(2)ALD oaqe 282 at oara 15 and para 18 observed as under:- *16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article t4L of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time absorption /regularization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of L994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.t994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). But l- / 23 SN,J W.P.No.10601 2023 still, it has not made any exception in favour of the states where state enactments banning regularization/absorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 1oo and G.o. Ms. No.212. dated 22.4'1994, do not *hittt. do*n the *idth and the iudqment in ManJrIa Bashrni,s case (suora), does not lower the traiectorv of Srp."-" corrt in pura 53 of itr jrdq-.nt in u-a D"rir, case (suorar. rt is. therefore. not permissible for ttre resoondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.o. Ms' No.212 dated 22.4.1994, to deny requta.ization to :the petitioners, who have, admittedlv. satisfied the :criteria laid down in para No.53 of the iudqment in uma ,Deyf's case (supra). 18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2oL7, in oA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside !'esoondents to consider reoularisation of the services of llnsoectors and apooint them subject to their satisfving !'he crite.ir laid down ir pa.a No,s3 of the judgment in u-a Deri'r crre (suo.a). This process must be compreted t !his order."

22. J'he Division Bench of this court in its Judgment dated v!LP.Ng.23o57 of 2o19 reported in 2o2o(4'rALD oage 379 at oaras 45,48 and para 5O observed as under:- "'[5. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in armost (30) years of sr:rvice by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuousry working without a,y court orders in their favour from 1gg0 tiil date. 24 SN,J W.P.No.10601 2023

48. It is not known whv the lst resoo dent has not followed the decision in Uma Devi's case (suora). as exolained in M.L. Kesari's case (suora) and undertaken a one-time exercise of preoarino the list of dailv waoe emolovees who had worked for more than ten (1O) vears without the intervention of the Courts and Tribunals as on 10.4.2006 and subiect them to a process verification as to whether thev are workino aoainst vacant oosts and oossess reouisite oualifications for the oosts. and if so, reoularize eir services.

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.A.2019 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; ttre resoondents are directed to reqularize on one-time basis getitioners' services from the date each of the oetitioners comolete 1O vears of service on dailv waoes from the rrf th€ir aDDointment- But- thev sh !l nof he lnitial da entitled to anv monetarv relief. The said exercise shall be done within two (21 weeks from the date of receiDt of coov of the order." 23 This Court ooines that in the Dresent resDonden ts failed to discharo e their dutv in exa inino the reouest of the petitioners for reoularization of Detitioners services, who are working as full time sweeoers in the schools se. the run bv the Resoondent de rtment since 1985 onwards and frrr+ha!.f.r h + +^ }r6-i llra +a.rrrr.ri of the oetitioners tn the last o de nost of full time oer as reoular o c for all Durooses o rantino last orad oav with periodical increment revised from time to time from the date of aooointment of the oetitioners, in accordance to law. a---f 25 SN,J W.P.No.10601 2.023

24. This Court ooines that petitioners are entitled for consideral:ion of petitioners case for qrant of the relief as prayed f(rr in the present Writ Petition in view of the observations of the Aoex Court in various judoments (referred to and extracted above) and the view of the Division Bench of this Court in the Judoments referrecl to and extracted above.

25. Taking into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The surbmissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.5 & 5, c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgmenk; (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: ix2,o2o) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) ,.9eo(2) scc Pase 3e6 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(Sc) 12O9 (v) (2ot7) 1 scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(e) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC 7797 (ix) (2o1s) 8 Scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc 223 26 SN,J W.P.No.l060l 2023 - (xi) SLP No.32847 ol 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(a)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.Z8Z ot 2O1O and 854 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment dated 08.O9.2O1O passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OOt and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 19.O9.2OL7 passed in W.p.No.272lZ of 2ot7 (reterred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in f.A.Nos.l ol 2OZO in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23057 ol 2OL9 (referred to and extracted above). g) In the tight of discussion and conctusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order. 2'l SN,J W.P.No.10601 2023 a h the re ula tzation of out-f oetitionerl services' and also the claim of tlre oetitioners to t s f n r rrt6 r ate of ADDointme n n c n o o n o v n h examine a d ert e me lna ccor ance to law. co for itv with orlncloles ofnatura Iiu stice bv ino an oDDortun r vi' reoorted in 2OO5(4'l SCC Paoe 1' the iudoment Dassed in o o o 9 d 1 d 4 w 2 Di e Court ated 19.O 9.20 17 0a ssed tn W.P.No .27 217 2007 8 d 2 s 1 7 w a 28 SN,J I W.P.No.10601 2023 oeriod of four (O4) w eks thereafter on receiot of he said e d erat o n the observatione d the la laid down v the ADex urt in the various iudo ents (refer d to and above), and in oarticular, para No.53 of the iudoment of the Cou d e I there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/. A.H.S. GOWRISH ASSISTANT TRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER epartm ent, Secretariat, yment Department, The Principal Secretary, Panchayat raj and Rural Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning D Hyderabad. The Commissioner of Panchayatraj and Rural Employment, State of Telangana, Urdu Hall Lane, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jagityal,. The District Collector, Jagityal District at Jagityal. One CC to SRI MOHD SUBHAN PASHA, Advocate [OPUCI Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad . [OUT] Two CCs to GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad . [OUT] One CC to R Chandra Shekar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies To,

3. 4 5 6 7

9. 10 PMK -+d{- HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:1110812025 .1; sIA t ,,1 ll,t.. D :,-- it.) 2 5 ul.R 2026 'z- .1. {i.j': \ rS ORDER WP.No.10601 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT GOSTS Qlr^-