Chakali Narayana. S/o Kistaiah. aged about 45 years v. prays to direct

Order

Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, Iearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. TheDetitionera D che the Cou s kino Dra er as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka & others Vs Umadevi, vide impugned proc. Rc. No. 33_8212019 dt 05/08/2079, on the ground that the petitioner is working not more than two hours in a day. contrary to their own correspondence of the respondents as highly illegal, u nconstitutiona I against the principles of natural justice and prays to direct the respondents herein to set aside the impugned Proc Rc.No. 33-82/2079, dated 05.08.2019, with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization as per the Judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka & others Vs Umadevi and by following the latest Division Bench Orders of this 1 i 4 SN. J Hon'ble Court in WP.No'23057 of 2019, dt 2tlO4/2O2O by reviewing the speaking order, dt 051O812019 and pass b ief as e the DEtitio ner in e ti ron r The ca 3 ave rme nts made in the affid vl the Dre ent WritPet tonis t s oDort of asunder:- t The petitioner was appointed on 22'7t'2006 as a Librarian in a Book Deposit Centre under the Zilla Grandhalaya Samstha on a consolidated pay of Rs' 300/-' which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.1,000/- and later to Rs.4,7721- Per month' worker, the Petitioner was Though designated as a Part-time assigned six hours of duty per day in accordance with official instructions issued by the Director of Public Libraries; including proceedings Rc.No.121-82186 dated 05'09'1986 and Rc'No'BB- B3/2OOB, dated 30. 12'2008' It is specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner' belongs to the B'C-A Community' and petitioner had rendered continuousserviceforoverl5years,performingdutiesonpar with full-time staff, without being accorded regular status or service benefits applicable to last grade service employees' in from the Directors of Public Libraries' fact Communications including Rc. No. 132-83/2004 dated 18'06'2017 and Rc' No' I 5 SN, J LI8-A2/20L2 dated 24.04.2012, acknowledged such service and recommended extension of last grade pay scales to similarly placed employees. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further.relies on the decision in O.A. No. 1438 of 2006, wherein the A.P. Administrative Tribunal directed payment of minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. The said order challenged by the respondents herein was upheld by this Court in W.P. No. 28140 of 2010, which was dismissed on 20.02.20t3, and the dismissal was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 12558 of 2014, which was dismissed on 19.09.2014. It is specific case of the petitioner that the contingent workers in other Government Departments, such as panchayat Raj and Health, are receiving last grade pay scales and benefits, while library workers performing similar or longer service continue to receive nominal wages. The petitioner approached this Court on an earlier occasion by filing W. P. No. 12858 of 2019 seeking regularization. However, the claim was rejected by the respondents wde proceedings Rc. No. 33-82/2019 dated 05.08.2019 on the 6 SN, J ground that the petitioner was working only for two hours a day.

Aggrieved by the rejection, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate relief.

4. PERUSED TH E RECORD:- (A) The order imouoned Rc.No.3 -8212019. dated

5.08.2 1 the Dir s Telanqana, Hvde abad in co moliance to the direction of this Court, dated 26.O6.20L9 oassed in W.P.No.12 58 of ic Libr r rofP 2O19 is extracted he under:- "In compliance to the Hon'ble High Court order's De:26.06.2019 APKNa1285B/2Ot9 by Sri A. Venkatesham. S/-o Mallaiah & 47 others, Book Deposit Centre in charge 1't cited. the following speaking orders were issued. The issue raised in the writ petition is squarely covered by the order directing the petitioners to submit a representation to the respondents in this court in Writ Petition No 6765 of 2Ot9 dt. 29.03.2019 and disposed seeking regularization within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. On receipt of such rep resentations, the respondents shall consider the same in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the State of Karnataka and others Vs Umadevi and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law". With the above observations the writ disposed off. There shall be no order as to costs" petition ts Sri A. Venkatesham s/o Mallaiah & 47 others Book Deposit Centre in charge is hereby informed that the book Deposit Centers in the Zilla Grandhalaya Samsthas are opened as per the local need, one delivery station for each village or a group of villages. I 7 SN, J In view of the above and due to local demand From the public to open new libraries in the vlllagei and towns and due to ban on opening of new libraries,- aoot Deposit Centers are opened to catei the needs of the'public. ^^-._ ?1."d on the request from villagers Book Deposit Lenrers nave been opened for providing 50 books in a span of fortnight, to enable the villagers to iead books whoever is in.terested in reading, without any sanction- orders or specific orders from the Government no spec. fund is created for Book Deposit Centers and the amounts are paid from the cess funds by the Zilla Grandhalaya Sarrtf,". Accordingly, the petitioners are engaged by _ Surpanches an voluntary bases to which an ur6rrt of nr. 1500 is provided to Gram panchayaths to faciLitate and maintain the Book Deposit Centers. Th e c andth re! Libraries svstem. o tw tn nd such Dost cre ted inth v 1n n n Pu lic With a good intention only to enable the villagers to improve their. reading habits 6ook Deposit Centers are opened and the volunteers are not working continuously full d_ay and they are living at the same ptac"e oi work anO working for limited time and to place the news papers on a fT readers. After ptacing the ne*s pupurif,!y "r" ut 9,^":1 Ioerty to work at their own. n Govern ent and t eva re not oua lified and ot I a o e d n h n f n only. It is further informed that the Hon,ble Supreme Court of India, in its order in State of Karnataka Vs Umadevi (3 t(2006) 4 SCC (1) categoricaily n"iJ *nun u person enters a temporary employment are gets engagement on contract or casual & the engagement is not 8 SN, J based on proper selection on relevant rules or procedure, is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contract in natural such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post, when an appointment to the post could be made by following proper procedure for selection in the cases concerned in consultation with the public service commission. All the et tron ers are en o ad ed bv sar nchesl oarticularly in the same villaoe and the deDartment is n tn them from doino other wo k. The functionin o of Book Deoosit Centers is Iimited oeriod I ie., not more than ibertv to two hours in a dav) and oetitioners are at have thei r own work. The dutv of the oetitione rs is to keeD news DaDers o a desk and to remove the Da oer n not t Henc reo u la rization h&47 of Sri Book D A m o v nk Centre in charoe, does not arise s oer the iudoment in the Stat of Karnata a and of the ADex Court others Vs Uma devi. In view of the above and in compliance of the Hon'ble High Court orders dated 26-O6-2Ot9 in W.P.No. No. 12858 of 2Ot9, the plea of petltioner was examined and considered and it is informed that it is not feasible for conslderation and hence rejected".

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contends that the order impugned, vide Rc.No.33-B2 lzCLg, dated O5'O8.2O19 passed by the 3'd respondent is passed without application of mind and in a routine mechanical manner without examining the relevant record pertaining to the petitioner herein and rejecting the request of the petitioner for regularization of 9 SN, J services of the petitioner, on the grouncl that the petitioner had not worked in sanctioned post and the petitioner's wages are not paid by the Government and the petitioner is not qualified and the petitioner had not been appointed by foltowing proper setection procedure.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the reasons for rejecting the request of the petitioner for regutarization of services is in fact contrary to the proceedings, dated O5.Og.19g6, L8,O6.2OO7,03.1O.2OO7 and 24.O4.2O12 issued by the 3.d respondent, whereunder the ctear recommendations in favour of part time workers, working in Zilla Grandhalaya Samsthas for regularization of services had been observed and therefore, the order impugned, dated 05.08.2019 passed by the 3.d respondent needs to be set aside, DIscus sroN AND coN LUSI ON

7. A bare perusal of the record indicates that vide Rc.No.121-82/86, dated 05.09.19g6, the 3.d respondent addressed to the Secretaries of Zilla Grandhayala 10 SN. J samsthasintheStatewhichinfact,clearlyreferstothe Proceedings of the Director Proc'Rc'No't2L-B2186' dated 20.06.1986, which indicates the fact of posts being sanctioned for appointment of part-time workers' The same indicates the plea put-forth by the respondents in the counter affidavit and also in the order impugned' dated 05.08.2019 in R.c.No.3g-B2l2OL9 passed by the DirectorofPublicLibraries,TelanganarHyderabadthat therearenosanctionedpostsrasnotonlyfalse'butalso contrary to 3'd respondent's own proceedings R'C'No'L2l- 82 I 86, dated 2O.O6. 1986.

8. A bare perusal of the letter Rc'No'L32-83/2OO4' dated 18.06.2OO7 of the 3'd respondent addressed to the secretarytoGovernment(ssA)-Education(ssA.LIB) Department , A.P., Hyderabad clearly indicates the fact of Government having sanctioned the posts on consolidated pay and the fact that persons/employees of Public Libraries are working full time for "6" hours a day since more than two decades as on 18'06'2007 and further recommended for sanction of the minimum of the pay scale of last grade service posts plus usual allowances I SN, J sanctioned in RpS-2005 vide the said tetter, dated 18.O6.2007.

9. A bare perusat of the tetter, dated O3.1O.2O07 vide R.C.No.132-Ei2/2OO4 of the 3d respondent addressed to the Principar Secretary to Government schoot Education (ssA) Department, Government of Andhra pradesh, which in fact, is a detaited report clearly indicates that part_time workers working in Zilta.Grandhayala Samsthas had been working full time ..6,, hours since last ..2O,, years as on O3.1O.2OO7 as stated and observed in the said letter, dated 03.1O,2OO7.

10. A bare perusal of the letter, dated 24.04.2O12 vide No.118-A2/2012 of the Director of public Libraries addressed to the Special Chief Secretary to Government (PL) School Education (pE-Libs) Dept, Government of Andhra pradesh, Hyderabad in fact indicates a clear recommendation for regularization into last Grade Services of part-time,/full time consolidate d/daily wage/ NMR working as on 25.11.1993 in public Libraries in the state, dury foilowing a detaired rist furnishing all the l2 SN, ] relevant particulars of part-timer/full time consolidated/ daily wage/ NMR'' working as on 25.1r..1993, district wise for perusal and consideration by the Government way back in April, 2O12 itself.

11. This Court opines that the impugned proceedings, dated O5.O8.2O19 rzr-de Rc.No.g3-b2/ZOLg is not only illegal, unconstitutionar, but arso an indication of a serious effort by the 3'd resporldent herein to deny the legitimate rights of the petitioner, by projecting pleas vide the impugned proceedings, dated O5.Og.2O19 of the 3'd respondent and also the counter affidavit filed in the present Writ petition, which are in fact, shockingly contrary to the 3.d respondent,s own record and the 3.d respondent's own proceedings.

12. This Court opines that the respondents through their counter affidavit fired in the present writ petition not onry misled the Court and misrepresented before the Court, but also projected the case of the respondents contrary to their own record, which is in fact a serious lapse on the part of the respondents in presenting the true facts before ,-rta ---*iL.i. .--_ . 1 .41 13 SN, J this Court and hence, this Court opines that the petitioner is entitled for grant of relief, since the subject issue requires reconsideration by the 3.d respondent herein.

13. The recent judgments of the Apex Court and the observations thereunder pertaining to regularization of services of part-time/full-time consolidated/daily wage NMR's are extracted hereunder:- A) The d Cou 2

2.2 4 in2 4 w t2 Ani n s.1 fn aan o d e I 4 27 an 8 e r o P ra r h hereu nder: "12._ Des-pite being labefled as ,,part_time workersr" the appellants performed th"se essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decadesl Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typ-icaily associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these taski - during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. t4 SN. J

13. The claim bv the resoondents that these were not reqular oo s lacks merit, as the nature of t e work oerformed bv the aDDella ts was Derenn ial and fundamental to the functionino of the offices. The recurring 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 entifled 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 hioh liqhts the iudiciarv's role in rectifvino such misclassifications and en u rino that rs receive fair treatment. l5 SN, J "irreg ular" held that emo lovees

26. . . While the Judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor eniries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to den Y legiti mate claims of Iong serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" appointments. It cateo ricall ula r ooointmen who were enqaoe in duly sanction and had served co tinuo slv for more than nve rs sho uld rre ularization asa one- be considered time meas ure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees,.bven in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Goveinment departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment,s explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is rve aDplicati ndistorts approp riate. This sel s lr h weaoonizinq it qatnst emol ovees who have indi sDen ble servi so ver ren dered decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to leg_al challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, o e u t6 SN, J promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness 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. 2a. 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 .1O.20\B are quashed; The aooellants shall be taken ii. on dutv forthwith and their services requla ised forthwith. However, the aooellants sh ll not be ecunlarv entitled benefits/b ack waoes for the Deriod thev hav not worked for ut would be entitl d to continuitv of servlces for the said oeri d and the same would be counted for their Dost- retiral benefits.l The Judqme t of the Aoex Court dat

31.O1.2025 B) reported in 2O25 INS C L44 in .SHRIPAL AND A OTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM . GHAZIABAD". in Darticula r, the relevant Para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted h ereu nder: '15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain Y t7 SN, J produced in full, the Employer's muster rolls were not failure to furnish such records-despite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfill ongoing municipal requirements year after 'year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court an Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

25. It is employees, a disconcerting reality that temporary particu Iarly in government institutions, t8 SN, J 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: o Masuse of "Temoor rv" Labels: E olovees enqaq ed for work that is esse ntial, recurrrno, and inteoral to th e functionin o of an institution are often labe lled as "contractual," even when their roles mirror Suc deo rives workers of the miscla ssification secu ritv, and benefits that reoular emDlovees are entitled to, desoite oerfo rmlno "temoorarv" m lo entica R ks. . 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. t, 19 SN, J . 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."

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record. L7. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant . Workmen stands in violation of the most basic Iabour 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, 7947, and that thev were enqaqed in essentaal, oerennial duties , these workers cannot be re!eoated to Deroetual uncertaintv. W ile concerns of municioal budoet and comoliance with recruitm ent rules merit consideration. such concerns do notabso lve the Emolover of statuto oblioations 20 SN, J r I itat nsc fwo me who rV m hel de facto reoular roles for an extended oeriod. I

18. The impugned order of the High Court, to the extent they confine the Appellant Workmen to future daily-wage engagement without continuity or meaningful back wages, is hereby set aside with the following directions: i. The discontinuation oF the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, Lg47, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen rt'lutt Ue 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 period of absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of service and all consequential benefits, such as seniority and eligibility for promotions, if any. III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50%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. 2t SN, J rv. The Reso nden Emolover !s directed to tn rate a faar and tran Dare t oro cess for e ul months from the date of rernstatement, dulv ntW km wt lztn the sid r r h fn ass tie aki a m e rm en duca ional or Em Dlover shall not tmD ose r tro nevera olied riteri u rrements were if su to the Ao ellant Wor kmen ort osl ilarlv situated e T e n th t san ton vaca nctes for such duties exist th Re e all ec a ese I n e indefinitelv retalned on dailv waqes contrarv to statutorv and equitable nor Em n n s s.

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.,, c) x Th m t urt i aJ Su reme Court Cases 148, in State of Pun la b and ot ers vs Jaqiit Sin qh and othersatP aras 54 and its sub-o ras (1) (2)(3) ,ofth e said Judqm ent observed asu nder: 2 7 1 "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that iemporatlr employees were not entitted to the minimum of the regular pay_ scale, merely for the reason, that the activities caried on 'by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The futt benc'h however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fett in either of the two exceptions, were held ertiU"'A to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular emptoyeeZ. The exceptions recorded by the futt bench of {ne Uign Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:_ 22 SN, J "(1\ A daitv waqer, ad hoc or contractual appointee )iliriJt iii' ,"guiu, sanctioned posts, if appointed after L'ni"i,igoing a lelection process based upon fairness and Z:qiiitii ,ir oppoftunitv to att other etigibte candidates' iiii oL entitled to minimum of the regutar pay scale from the date of engagement. -i.iL"t (2) But if daity wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees '"i it uipiintea-"qainst regular sanctioned...posts and are ivailed iontinuously, with notional inli, ;n'"1rt,- 6y tne State Government or its instru mentalities ior-u-tufiiri"rt long period i'e' for 10 years' such daily entitled ;"g"u ad hoc or Zontractuat appointees shall .be to' miiimum of the regular pay scale without any allowances on the assumption that work of perennial nuii" it available and having worked for such long period i, equitable right ii created in such category of if-ii., ;;";;or; Thei) ctaim for regutarization, .if an,y' may have 'to be considered separatety in terms of tegally permissible scheme, (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale 'u1"i ior" than three years and two months of iompletion of 70 years of continuous working' a daily wao'er, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to uri.uit for a period of three years and two months'" ) D) scc 247 betw een state f Karnatak xCo rt re rte in2 10 I and others v M.L. r 4 9 under: s The I rendered on 7O 4.2006 (reDorted 'h 'io t B I a o int, IN t did t on the aD orn a h u o er, d, I I n ,n o n on or le 226 f issue directions for evt wa 2 G)scc 7). In held tha rocess fer an fl 'annot direct m nt nor urt in Constit I h ,seo SN, J nomtc rrancrem nt of its ffairs bv continu ular manner, tn d tha tertere undulv with asstno of the const 'utional and ld th ta Stafe o to be tn ulariz, itment had been d,one tn a tional careful in ensurino that thev do not , ,rs men talities- nor lend themse statutorv not h ndates This Court m of th cilitate the b in te al, s7 d7 m and the same is extract,'ed below : n a eCo ,on. , I .N. "53. One ere ma vbe cases where rreqular aDDointme nts (not illeoal ADD tntmen )as lained in S.V. Narava n DDA 79 R 7 tobec rified, , o9 ara a 79 n 'he e de an dulv oualified Ders ns in dulv sanctioned vacant oo sts mioht have rred'to ,n Dara 7 above. iudqment. in the in the ca ntion of orde ht of the orincioles settled b s veats or more but without of the courts or of tribu ls. The ouestio of reo larizationofth servtcesof such emoloveesmavh ve to be considered on Cou above ferred to and in the lioht In that conte.xt, the Union of India, the State c vernmen aon e-time easure- aDDO nte who ha ve ,n dulv sanctioned o osts but not u er co rs of t, e cou o of such irreaularlv vears or more or of tribunals and should ken to fill those vacant sanctioned oosts u e servi t ed for ,re a s w The withtn srx m onths from this date. .... 'ss mu a e o "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularization, enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions aie futfitted : 24 SN. J (i) The employee concerned shoutd have worked for 10 years or 'iore in duty sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any couft or tribunat' In other words' the State Government or its instrumentality shoutd have employed ihe employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) fhe appointment of such empioyee should not be illegal' Lven if iiregula.r. Where the appointments are not made or continued igainst sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed di not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications' t'he appointments wilt be considered to be iltegal' 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' (iii) lJmadevi casts a duty upon the concerned Government or 'initru mentality, to take steps to regularize the services of those irregutarty appointed employees who had served for more than ten'yeari witnort the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure' lJmadevi, directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 10'4'2006)' 6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the 'aetisioi in'umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc emplo.yees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals 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 daity-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were stn pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and iistru mentatities did not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand' some Governient departments or instru menta tities undertook the one-time exercise exctuding several employees from consideration either on the qroind that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer iversight. In such circumstances' the 25 SN, J employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, 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 lJmadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daity- 'of wage/adhoc,/those employees who had put in 1O years continuous service as on 70.4.2006 without avaiting the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunats. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of. para 53 of umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise wi be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of l.)madevi, are so considered. 5 on tn at those who a. Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure ut tn plovino ce. Secoa disto the oro Ction of anv interim orders of courts or te of d' ctston tn Umadevi was nsure that the /ad- r reaular. ation in 's do not DerDetua rsons on dailv-wa unals- before the rendered. are considered their lono se deoartments/ ins mentali, Dracti'ce of rea,ularize them on the oround t, at thev have served for or statutorv Drovtstons relatinq to recruit,ment and an ten e date of decision in Umadev,i) without the 7 o.4.2005 Drote tion of anv interim ord,er of anv court or tribu al, in vacant Dosts, Dossessrrro the reouis ite oualifica tion, are r the molover vi or that such exe ,se was u dertaken onlv in to a li,mited few, will not disentitle such as a one-time Uma emolo vees, the rioht to be considered ,n terms of the above di, measure. not undertaken such exerc ns in Umade r reoula ls as tion. ,rs m e

9. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in umadevi. The Appeltant (Zita panciayat, 26 ;tt; Sx'-. J Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of ,iiiEiirution within six months of the decision in umadevi or thereafter.

70. a ,se, Panchavat, Gadao shouldn ow undert'ake an exerclse izatio e nvd ilv Pa chava t and if so Dara 53 fU ethe such em vees dou twh ther oc em there afe I u e I devi. If the fulfi Iar e includino their serv ces d e i EE k, 7 r n , 3 f o ,n e n f the t z ,n r catio al qu ificat. ,ra otn timeoft, 'ab re u d isposed of accord ing lv. a s ent. thev scflbed for the Dost, at the av be considered for w This E ADE Cou E) In the Ju domentoft inN hal Sinoh n r v 201 14S c 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'emptoyees' of those Banks since the , { E 27 SN, J appointment was made by the State and disciptinary control vested with the state. rt herd 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 persofls creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. ft also refused to a eDt hedefence that there were no sa nctio ned oosts d w ft r en I u a th Sta t utili r e h a a n d no all f m eav n" d t e s c consctou sch ice onthe basis of fn d m VI nal assessment h ell nts e h m e o n n w no r a a n d h 8 an o e e en t! s o a sor ed in s c e e s w r 28 SN. J P n Dracti a F) s tem DOra bv the State. Itw rv and notaqainst any sanctio ned DOSts created ash rd th t the iudqm ent tn Umad evt a licen ce for exDloi atron bv the State and and net her heG overnment of mentalita cannot become instru or th ublic secto rBa nks ca n conti nue such a ce inco n sistent with their obliqation tof nction in anc wit eC n Th Onl iudq ent of the Dex ourt oortedin2 o15 7 7 ee B.Sri valu hers v il re lCo Re mm! N llo Distr An r Pr h r oar s7 and 8 readsasun er: find it difficult to acce the reasonina ado oted b the Dt (7) h Court. The rioht of theapoellants to seek reoularization Hiq 1994. The aooella nt flows m the G,O. NO.212 dated 22.4. have been ln service of the first resDondent not on lv orior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subse euent to the issue of G.O. till todav. The respondent Municipality being a statutorY, ra). Inspite of the above body is obliged bY the G.O. 212(suP quite for almost 20 Years mentioned G.O. the respondents kept without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above 8. mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal betatedty, in our opinion, is not justified ' In the circumstances, the appeat is attowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appetlants' services be regularised from ihe date of their completing their five year *ith continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District "ff"rt t 29 SN, J Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M-L. Singh & ors. 20og (8) SCC 4BO. t ofB d 2015 G) Sta scc 26s the Suore eCo held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularisation of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure irregular but not illegal, and emolovment of those Derso s who had erved the S ate appointments, which are e . rns vernment vears". In that case emolovee was Thisd ADDTOves rl ier ies f o orkino for 29 vears. vrew exDressed M.L.Kesari extra eda ve. H) In State of Jarkhand v amal Prasad reDortedin ilar vlew was tak nbv the 23, si (20 14) 7 scc Cou a contin for more than 7 o I this Court in Umade 20 b te of Karnata kavUm adevi to the Drese,rf cases. The Div.,ston Benc.'h of the ADD h lovees ef, the same canno tbe r the t t e 7, L h are entitled b ,s I 30 SN. J I) The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.27602 ot 2O19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2O23 dated

10.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated 09.O8.2024 in SLP No.32847 ot 2O24. L4. The order imou ned. dated os.08.2019 Rc.No.33-B 2/2049 issued bv the 3'd res ondent indi cates a sDecific olea t at the oetitioner is not workinq more dav aoart f m other reasons that than two (O2) hours the D titioner is ot workinq in a sancti ned oost and the waoes of the oetition er are not oaid bv the Government and the oetition r is not oualified and not aoooin ed bv followin o a oroD r selection oroced u re. This Court Drnes that the olea that oetitioner is not workinq more than two o n ra rd srn recommen dations i n favour of oart time workers worki no in Zilla Grandhalava Samsth as borne on rec rd, dated os.09 .1986. 18.06.2007, 03 1 O.2OO7 and 24.O4.2Ot2 of { ,... .*' *. l ({ 3t SN, J the 3'd resDonden tad dressed the State G overnment R te th co ti noe t worker w rked ll- e sin ron rwh in the Zilla Grand avala Samstha r -20 20 h dav and n of two (o2) h urs a dav. T ut- erm n r h o 2 1 nh da I b ob ervations in the various ludq ents (referred to extracted above) T sc tth or m o A

5.O o1 h ow record and its ow n corresDon e nce in oart icu la r, the a m n b e b e R ulari ation fs a Zilla Grandhava la Sa sthas and there re, the sub ect r s ntn to lartz ron e f ervi s e e b e 3td s on i )L SN, J considerati n:-

15. Takin qin a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the resPondents, c) The judgment, dated 26.06.2019 passed in favour of the petitioner in W'P.No.12858 of 2O19 (referred to and extracted above), d) The order impugned Rc.No.33-B2 l2OL9, dated O5.O8.2O19 passed by the Director of Public Libraries, Telangana, Hyderabad in compliance to the direction of this Court, dated 26.06.2O19 passed in W.P.No.12858 of 2O19 (referred to and extracted above), e) The specific averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the petitioner that the petitioner is continuously working since 22.11.2OO6 as BDC In-charge in Zilla Grandalaya Samstha, }agra.-i. _-..2( SN, J f) The contents of the tetters, dated O5.O9.19g6, L8.O6.2OO7, O3.1O.2OO7 and 24.04.2012 of the 3.d respondent addressed to the State Government pertaining to iegularization of Services of part_time workers working in Zilla Grandhayala Samsthas, S) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: (i) 2O2s rNsc 144 (ii) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 1209 (iii) (2017) 1 SCC 148 (iv) 2o1o(9) scc 241 (v) (2O13) 14sCc 6s (vi) 2O15 SCC Online SC L7g7 (vii) (2o15) I sCc 26s (viii) (2014) 7 s0c 22s (ix) SLP No.32847 of 2024 Th Writ P iti Th r n c 3 2 o1 d edO 2 9 Dire aside, rof Pub lic Librarres, Tela qana, Hvderabadis set takino considera !on cl ar r dations in fav f za a the oa rt-time sw ch s r workers 34 SN, J as borne on record in favour of the oetitioner vide dated 05 03.1O.20O7 and 24.O4.2OL2 of the 3'd resDondent 1 e.06.2007 I ailar.c 19 A tn s o o 1 oe6 r addressed to the State Government and the subiect issue re uest of the reqularization of services of the oetitioner is remitted n f h n back to the 3'd resoondent h rel n, and the 3td resoondent is directed to consider the Detitaoner's reouest for rvtces mm n n dated O5.O9.1986 O3.1O.2O07 and 24.O4.2OL2 issued bv the Director of Public Libraries bv dulv exa minino the relevant records oertaininq to the petitioner and examininq the same in lioht of the observations ma de bv the Aoex Court in the m n and extracted abo Dass aDDroDriate orders n accordance to !aw, in conformitv with orinciples of natural iustice bv orovidino rtnnr.rrtr rrii af na r n a lh to the etitro within a oeriod of four (O4) weeks from the date of receiot communl h decisio oertaininq to o f et t oner &l- W' lariza f of Detitio r' an itia I u n ial t e shall benoorder as to co s. en fa 35 titi n rw f h a SN, J nt and for release of all n r H w v r e Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/-A. SRINIVASA REDDY NT REGISTRAR AS S llfnue coPYtt One fair copy to the HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUR (For His Lordship,s Kind perusal) SECTION OFFICER ALLI NANDA Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad. Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

1. The Special Chief Secretary, Education (pE-LlB) Department, Telangana 2 The Principal Secretary, Finance and planning Department, Telangana 3. The Director of Public Libraries, Govt., of Telangana, Afzalgunj, Hyderabad. 4. 11 L.R. Copies. 5. The Under Secretary, Union of India, IMinistry of Law, Justice and Company 6 The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court 7. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-|, High Court for the State of Telangana at B. One CC to SRI CH.GANESH, Advocate tOpUCl 9. Two CD Copies Hyderabad. [OUT] Buildings, Hyderabad. Affairs, New Delhi. a -t * TI s * s F To SA B ( C .C. TODAY 1H SIA .J O *- n TJ Ar,l[ 2025 * SPAT * 16 I * 4 q i b 2I t. b t I HIGH COURT DATED:0710712025 ORDER WP.No.12132 ot 2021 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. o t