Civil Appeal No. 6318 of 2015 · The High Court · 2025

"36. There are some of the employees who h;r'e not been reoularized in spite of having rendered the ser\::^":.fot 3o- ;ii:;;.o?'vu-ul *n"'"ut t-hev have been sur:ra,nnuated' worked in the work-charged e; ablishment' oI it il,'.n1,..,'""v p"r.tlt'rtt project' their serv,r i]-:.'nn' to ;;;" L;"^ regularized under lhe Government instructions ;;;-";;; us'per. tn" oetiiion of this cour: in state of *;;";"k" veri,s umaoe'i (:)rr' This Court in-the said laid down thui in tut" servic(': have been ;;i;i;;'h"t rriirlr"o ioi .or" than ten vears without.:n'' ::Y.:rof as one-time measure' the services be tlr-*;, case' .-""*Lr,."l-ii' sucrr emptoyees' In. the facts of who have worked for ten / )ars or moTe iilt" ".rr"r"es ri"ila*nJ""' ueen regularized lt would not )e proper to ;;;;i;; ;;;;iol. .o'i'ia"'ution of resularizzt on as others ;'"'";";";;'r;quta'izea, we direct that thei services be -"ro"r, ^the I t. '. I 7 S\. J Np 12076 2021 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 contlnued in service regularly beforJaftaining the age of superannuation' They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired the reoular e ablishm nt and the servrces rend redbvth em rioht f om the d v thev e tered h ilb h oual if tno servl e for DurDose of oen ion. m h 8 The Aoex Co rt in the case of Dharwad District PWD te Dailv Waoe Emolovees Ass ciation Vs. Stateof ataka r oorted n 1990( 2) SCC Pa oe 396 aid Drinciole Litera Kar he St te shou dnotk eDaoe son tn emDora that t adh c service for Iono oeriod and have to treat such t oersons as reoular one. 9 Para No .53 of the of the iudqment of th e Aoex ourt and o h rs Uma VI da

10.04.2005 reDorted in (2 06) 4 scc 1 is extracted hereu der: - 1 s a "53. One asDect need tobec la rified. There mav be cas s where trreoular a oooint ents ( not illeoal R. 196 and referred to in oara 15 above,ofd ulv oualified DE ons rn dulv sa ncti oned vacant Dosts miqht have been made nd the emolovees have continue dto more but without for t n vears 1 72 .v. a 79 L28 B.N 50 N a IN 4 n a 8 SN..i \r'p t 2076 202 t lnterventao n of order n e r emolovees mav have tobeco th ti h of he bov r n I sof the courtso of trib nal t art ati 1 vices of such e on merits in thi Court in the d iqhtof h rf India, the 'umentalities a one-tim e v aopointed, h their anst a of u h trr on xt e n d ent. n ha State Govern ments sh uld tak s m sur the s f rt av w k or of bu als nd ecru it o ; I re n rrders of the ensure that en o fill b filled u o. Cailv waqers ust be set in w T ) h n u a b

10. T e d t I in2 24 La s c o 2 24 s 1 9 7 o Ani c o er v nt n In ta n o h s D raq raDh Nos.12, L3, 24, 26. 27 and 28 h reu nder: nd _:he relevant it 'e extracted "1_2.. Des.pite being labelled as ,,pari:.time workers," the appeilants performEJ i rr"ru essential tasks on a daily and contirr.rous basis over extensive periods, ."G;; ir;rn over a decade to nearly two'decaie.l ..h.i, engagement was not sporadic or temp,(,rary in T"ayr.., instead, it was recurrent, re,g utar, and akin to the responsibilities tyf; c;[y a-ssociated with sanctioned posts, f.1".[,,,""r, the respondents did not engage "ny , th"r. -it personnel for these taskl - during l3j:Ii"lr. . tenure, underscorinj" in" " rndispensable nature of their work. \ I I I , 9 SN. J wp 12076 2021

13. m necessitates The recurrtng nature of these d uties classification as regular Posts, irresPective of how their in itia I engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthY that subsequent o utsourcing of these encies after the same tasks to Private ag termination demons trates the inherent appellants' need for th ese services. This act of outsourcing, which elfectivelY replaced one set of workers with at the work in another further underscores th question was neither temPorarY nor occasional' The landmark judg ment of the United State 24. in the case of Vizcaino v M icrosoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a Pertinent example from the Private sector, illustrating the conseq uences of misclassifying emPloYees to this case, clrcu mvent Providing benefits' In M icrosoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, therebY denying them em ployee benefits. The U.S' Court of APPeals for the Ninth ircuit determined that these workers were, tn c fact, common-law emPloYees and w ere entitled to the same beneFits as regular emPloYees. The Court noted that large CorPorations have increasing lY adoPted the Practice of hiring temPorary employ ees or indePendent contracto rs as a means of avoiding Payment of emploYee be nefits, thereby increasing their Prof its This judg ment u nderscores the nature of the work the PrinciPle that performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should dete rmine emPloYment status and the corresPonding rig hts and benefits. It if tn h h ensu rr nq that s ch ml cla sifications an worke sr fair t t t r u l0 SN. J rvp-12076 2021 While the j udgment in Uma Devi

26. sought to curtail the practice of backdoor r and ensure aPPointm ents adhered to constil.r principles, it is reg rettable that its PrinciPI often misinterPreted or misaPPlied to leg itimate claims of long serving emPloYet: judgment aimed to distinguish between appoln "irregular" It m t ts w w o t nt n e d had a fo m c ntinuous I However, the lauda 1 e t the judgment is a to indiscriminatelY re it rely on its d ict ees, even in cases whe:t claims of emPloY appointments are not illegal, but mer: adh erence to procedural formalities' Gove dep artments often cite the judgment in Ur (supra) to argue that no vested 'l reg u larization exists for temporary enr judgment's overlooking a ckn o wled g ment of cases where regulari' lon I appropriate. Thi 1i w aDonizlnoit r de ade s I s n oaln ste olovees wt rvlc !; e e n upra) ntries tional !s are . This llegal" nents. ) !s in I red in rhould one- ,ent of tutions ct the e their y lack rnment ra Devi Jht to ,loyees, ex p licit ation is li storts :ctivelv o have In light of these consideratlons in our 27. opinion, it is imperative for go! 3rnment JEpu.t.entt to lead by example in provl Jing fair and stable employment. Engaging worllr rs on a f"rporury basis for extended periods, e specially when their roles are integral to the orgtrr ization's funitioning, not only contravenes inte -national labour sta-ndards but also exposes the or3 lnization to legal challenges and undermines t: nployee mora-le. By ensuring fair emp loyment practices, government 'nstitutic't rs can reduce the burden of unnecessary li:igation' \ l1 SN. J \",p 12076 2021 promote job security, and uphold the principles of iustice 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 . 10.20 78 are quashed ; . r services requla sed However, the aoo The apoellants shall be taken on dutv forthwith and their forthwith. a nts shall not be f benefits/back waqes for the oeriod thev have not worked fo but would be entitled to continuitvo servlces dn eriod and tha c.eiria Ja I would be counted for their Dost- retiral benefits." t h aca t f

11. The Judqment of the Apex Court dated 31.01.2O25 ..SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v. reoorted in 2O25 INSC 144 i NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZI ABAD", in oarticular, the relevant oara Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder: *15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen s over se er h na e h n tn ,) SN. J \vp 12076 2021 \ Even if certain muster rolls were not DrJ duced in full, the Emolover's failure to furnish sr. ch r rds- despite directions to do so-allowsq an adverse inference under well-establishr:d la bou r Labour law stror qlv disfavors iurisprudence. Ind PerDetual dailv-wa e or contractual elr laoem ents in circumstances where the work is t ermanent in nature. fulfil onqoanq municipal reouirem ents vea r after vea r cannot be dismissed sum arilv as ensable oa rticu la rlv in the absence of a oenu! re contractor aqreement. At this juncture, it would br: appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinit: "temporary,, employment practices as done by a recerr judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India ir the following paragraphs: d leoa v. worke T w orallva n "22. The pervasive misuse of tempor.:y employment contracts, as exemplified in this rl rse, reflects a broader systemic issue that ac \ ersely affects workers' rights and job security. n the private sector, the rise of the gig econom,/ has led to an increase in precarious employmenl. arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefit s, job security, and fair treatment. Such practir:r s have been critrcized For exploiting workers ar I undermining labour standards. Government institu ions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairrr :ss and justice, bear an even greater responsibilit\/ to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuser of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the de I 'imental trends observed in the gig economy b.r: also sets a concerning precedent that can erode 1 ublic trust in governmental operations. ;.+ i! ...jJ6.8r.-r1gv /1 - s\. I wp 12076 2021

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 lo 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manitest in several ways: a n w t reo labelled "temDo rarv" t eoular em lovee h isu se of "T mDor rv" L bels; molov ees hat i n and inteqral to the fun ronlnq of an institu ron "contract al." even w en their roles mlrror Such t dio itv. em lovees are entitled to, desoite perfo rmrnq iden tical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in ihe 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 ofte-n find theirselves 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 nifica nt. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by effectively replacing one set ternpo.ary of exploited workers with another' This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates 'employees, l4 SN. J r\p.12076 2021 a deliberate effort to bypass the obli, lation to offer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Beneli s: Temporary employees are often denied fundarr ental benefits such as pension, provident fund, ht'; lth insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardshi: especially in cases of illness, retirement, ,)' unforeseen circumstances. "

16. The High Court did acknowledge t re Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wa(J !s with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regre-l ably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Vorkmen were left in a marginally improved yet still u r rertain status. While the High Court recognized the imp,)'tance of their work and hinted at eventual regularizatic r, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meanin I back wages commensurate with the degree of sta -ltory violation evident on record. L7. In light of these considerations, t re Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workrr en stands in rles. Once it is violation of the most basic labour law prinr;i established that their services nated without adhering to Sections 6E and U. P. I nd ustria I : enqaqed in Disputes Act, 1947, and that essential, oerennial duties, these worl< lrs cannot be releqated to Derpetual uncertaintv, Vr' rile concerns of municioal budqet and com T iance with 6N of l,vel'l we re 'ul _i ''7)' ,1, l5 S\. J \{,P_r2076_2021 recru itment rules merit considerataon , such co ncerns !o e r bu rea ucratic limitations cannot trumo the leq itimate riohts of workmen who have served continuo uslv in de fa to reqular roles for an extended period. ti atio In

18. The imouon ed order of the Hiq h Court, to the exte t thev confine the AD oellant Workmen to futu re dailv-waoe enoaoement without continui asid e with the ts herebv s ack waoe m eaninofu i rectio b s 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, L947, 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 entrre oefl od of absence (from the date of termi nation until actual rei nstate ent) shall be of service and all cou ntedforc ontin u i conse o uentia I benefits, such as senioritv and elioibili tv for Dr motions, if anv. IlL Consldering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50olo of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their t6 sN, l l p_ I2076 202 I actual reinstatement. The Respondent clear the aforesaid dues within thre: the date of their reinstatement. :mployer sha ll months from t en Em lo IV T ER o tn!tiate a air and tran sDa r ntD roce t m nth ren ial mun A e th fa tha th td es rel sta :emen har e oe ed to r t Workrrr, |n within srx d lv )D erman ent I requl a ?ation, tm se ecl rc tional or retroact iverl rr n era led to the or to imilr rlv situated in the ast. 'li I t e extent s cnd utie exist tE 1 rolover shall rati re orocess es y ees are not ;co ntra rv to ad tnt DOSts. as es Emplovers hall not Droced ural criterta e tl n w r m an ron dv an es ut m ts requla re Dlo a fin tel ulr d all ec r x o lon tim em ed on ail statutorv and equitable no rms. 19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s ) Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed.,, a riled by the filed by the

12. EA ex Co s e c ur Ca s1 8 d e ted n o1 1 n t t Para P Ia and oth ers nd s sub- pa t' t 54 v Ja oth rs (1)(2)(3), of the said iudoment observed as 11 Fult Bench of the Hiqh Court. wh upon the above controversy had'concludid, t emptoyees were not entitted to the miniiii-or , t scale, merely for the reason, that the activitie; da i ty - wa g e rs a nd reg u I a r .. pto yiir- iZ i"ri _' i t u, . ,'54,,The rde r: 'e adjudicating ]at temporary e regular pay- carried on by The fu ll bench t7 SN. J wp 12076 2021 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 extracted hereunder:- "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shalt be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2) But if dailv waoers. ad oc or con aDDOtn tees are not aooointe adainst sancti ned Dosts and their servrces are vailed Q;ala cl n rs. ad itled t aular oav scale witho t anv rco t mtntm m of the Derenn ial nature is available an havino wo such Iona oeriod of time, an eouitable ri'oht is created in such categorv of oersons. Their claim for reqularization, if anv. mav ha to be considered e ar, instru lono oeriod i.e. for 70 vears. such dailv wa I with n the rnment cihla sc nal b m ti rms o ,es o n (j) 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 iud oment of the ADex Court reoorted in 2o10(9) f Karnataka and others v scc 47 betwee n: State M.L.K sari and others, in oarticular, Daras 4 to 9 reads as u nder: The decision in State of Karna taka v. umadevi was 10.4.2006 ( reported in 2006 (4) S ndered 4. hat case, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made CC 1). In t l8 SN, J !\p r2076 2021 without following the due process or the ',les relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regut, rization or re- engagement nor make their service permane'', and the High Court in exercise of jurisdictian under Artr' le 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directiol; 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 rr.t st be careful in ensuring that they do not inteiere unduly wi h the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its itstrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilit. -e the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. r tis Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual , r a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be r tade permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the r,: ?vant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Consti: 'tton. This Court however made one exception to the above losition and the same is extracted below : ,; a , I I aular aooointmett s (not ,,s3 Onea sDect needs to be clan There mav be cases where illesa I aooointmentsl as exolained in S,l Narayanappa 17967 (71 SCR 7281, R.N. Naniund ,Da [7972 (7) SCC 4O91 and B.N. Naoaraian f797 (4) SCc so71 and referred to in Dara 75 above, < d ua lified Dersons in dulv sanctioned vacant Dcsts miaht have been made and the emolovees ha't : continued to work for ten rs or more bu without the intervention of o ers of the courts r of tribunals. The ouestion of reoularization of I services of to be considered on such em DloYees mav ha merits in the liqht of the rincioles: settled bv this Court in the cases abovereferred to , I d in the li t of this iudqment. In that contex the Union of India. the State Governmenl: instrumentalities should take steos 1) reoularize as a one-time measure, the services of ; uch irregularlv for te a vears or more A DDOIN in dulv sanctioned oosts but not t,nder cover of orders of the rts or of tribun ls and should further ensure that reoular rec'uitments are undertaken to fill those vacant s,a Tctioned posts be filled UD, ilr cases where temporarv emolo yees or dailv wa't ers are beins who have wo I9 SN, J wp_12076_2021 now emD lo ved- The oroc ss must be set in motion within six months from this date. .... "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 70 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, 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 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, , Umadevi casts a du vernment or instrumentalit u on k s s regularize the services of those irreaularlv apoointed I, es who had served for more tha without the benefit or orotection of anv interim orders of urts or a a one-time measure. Umade directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 7O.4.20O6 ). 6, The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to 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. 20 SN. J $t lll,. r, l(rll

7. At the end of six months from the dat= of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad - hoc/r.i sual employees were still pending before Courts. Conseq rently, several departments and instrumenta lities did not cont nence the one- time regularization process. On the othe hand, some Government departments or instrumentalitie; undertoak the one-time exercise excluding several pr tployees from consideration either on the ground that their cas s were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such ct, umstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered 1 terms of Para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose l leir right to be considered for regularization, merely becau:;' the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in pa-, 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should ct tsider all daily- wage/ad hoc/those employees who had put o 10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 with<tt't availing the protectlon of any interim orders of courts or ribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in te, rts of para 5j of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of sorr r employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umad€ /i, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as , continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise v ill be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled , c be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considen d.

8. The obiect behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure t ,at those who have put in more than ten vears of conl'nuous service without the protection of anv interim ordErs of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision itl Umadevi was rendered, are considered for reqularizanrn in view of their lonq service. Second is to en s ure that the departments / instrumenta lities do not p "rpetaate tbe practice of emolovins Dersons on rtailv-waoe/ad- hoc/casual for lono oeriods and thgt periodically reoularize them on the oround that thev I ave served for more than ten vears, therebv defeatinq th'. constitutional or statutorv Drovisions relatino to rt :ruitment and appointmeot. The true effect of the dire 9:ion is that all oersons who have worked for more than ! 2n vea as on the date of d'ae ician in I lrn.aip ,i) without the 10 protectiotl of anv interim order of anv cour n nq the reouisite o 9 alification. are vacant Dosts, Dosse entitled to be considered for reoularizatic\ ._I heJAStLb a t .4.2oo n un 6 2t SN. I rvp 12076,2021 , n n la ,za h o e olo vees.t e oht o s b a t k o n e w, wiil not d r t t tle such ati' n lar, a n d to be ire o measure. 9. These appeals have been pending for more than four Years after the decision in LJmaievi' The Appellant- (Zila Panchayat' Z;2";" *t"-nott considJrlua tli" cases of respondents of i"irEiriiim iithin six iiitnt of the decision in umadevi or thereafter. 10. The Division Bench of the High Couft h,as d'::^':"d that the in a.ccordance with cases of respondents snou'U- A'e ionsidered . law. The only further di'Jiioi-tiit needs be given' in view of 'u-i"ilirt,- ti that the iila canchavut' Gadag shoutd now ;';;;;;'i"'in exe,cise wihin six months' a senerat one- time regularization exercise, ti rinO out whether there are anY daily wage/casuat/ad-hoc emproy;e"t ti*inq the zila^PanchaYat and if so whether such emprcvleZ- lictuaiig th.e. r::p-o:dents) fulfilt the requirements mentioned ii para 5i of umadevi'.'f t!?!:y:!:l: ;;";,";;"i, iervices have to be regutarized' If such an exerdse "i'"i"Jrciiii"en undertaken by ignoring o.r omittinq the cases 'o7'ri-irini"ro 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases' then their cases shall h";;-;; ie considered in -co.ntinuation the said one time exercise-within three months lt is needless to sav that if the respond"rit'ai iot tutfill the requirements of ';:r"";; ii i)'i"aiii, tneir" seiices need not be resutarised' If the employees who have iompleted ten Years. s-ervice do not ';;t;;;'r7,'"- ;; u ca r i o n a t i'i t i r i [u t i o n t p resc r i b e d ro r t h e p o st' a t rhe time of their uppo'lili"il' they may be considered for regularization in suitante tiwir-irttt.' This appeat is disposed of accordinglY. In the ud oment of the A Dexc ourt tn I L4. Nihal tn qh fP v n ot 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of a bsorPtion Police Officers appointed by the State' whose of SPecial o e 2 1 s c 't) s\..1 u p l2{);6 1021 wages were paid by Banks at whose C isposal their services were made available. It held that 'he mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did n( t render the appellants 'employees' of those Bank r since the appointment was made by the State arrr I disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that thrr r creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadrr is a matter exclusively within the authority of the Sta te, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but < hose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It aL ,o refused to acceDt the defence that there were no sa r ctioned posts t and sot he rewasr ustifica ion for the Si ate to utilise services of laroe nu ber of DeoDle like the: appellants for decades. It held that "sanctioned Dosts d not fal! from c h eaven" and that the te has to cre:re them bv a cons c ous choice on the basis of some ratior al assessment of need. Referrino to Umadevi. it held thal the appellants b e re them were ot arbitra rt v chose r. their initial aoDo lntment was no an 'irreoular' aDDoint nent a it had been ma de n acco rda nce with the statu I orv D cedure \:-:rla7r, - 23 SN. J wp 12076 2021 c b P li c h n e ti le t b r n r c n absorbed into t rvices of t e Sta e n oerm a nent b sl a accordinq to it, their tm ntswer o relv n bv the State' I n s n a n a t e n r e n b r m a lc n r n n t s t it er eG ve n e t P bn r o ic e o B n n o e u oractice inconslstent witht heiro qa e o u o c o a e tion to function tn

15. T e iud qment t he Aoex Co u DO rtedin o 5 co ti ct7 Nell re Mun ioal B rt v u n o e or oration Re .bv its commissio ner, N il Daras 7a nd 8 rea d as un der: P n I d s a h rs u r t n 9 U z (7) r ill G, o. body is obliged mentioned G.O. v- The resq by the G n n o o ondent MuniciPa titY being a statutory Inspite of the above .O.212(suPra)' for almost 20 Years respondents kePt quite 24 SN, J !\p 12076 2021 without regularising the service of the appellant i and continued to extract work from the appellants. In the circumstances, refusing the benc it of the above 8. mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appelti nts approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not ustified. In the circumstances, the appeat is allowed modifyine' lhe order under appeal by directing that the appellants' servic?; be regularised with effect from the date of their completin) their five year continuous service as was taid down by this :ourt in District Coltector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh I Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 4BO,

16. In Amark a ntRai vState of Bih r reDo 'ted ( 2o15) 8 scc 265. the Suoreme Court held that ''he objective behind the exception carved out in this cas€: was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular sure appointmen ts, which are but not illegal, and to en ,: SeCU ritv of irregular but not illegal, and to ensut': emDlovment of those Dersons who had se:r he Stat Govern ment and thei i nstru menta Iities fol more than ten In that case, emDlovee wa workirr r for 29 vears. vea rs". This dectston aoD ves earlier vaew exore ed in L n xtracted abo t7. In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Pra (20L4) 7 sCC 223, similar vtew was aken b re orted Suorem e Court and it was held as follows : \ w ,,47, n h ,o 25 SN. J wp 12076 2021 In viewofth eca teoorical findinoof facton the re than7O ve rs rce for nti ued in ow b I o U s n n a a m ev I I 4 c h a Hiah Court has n e s & n n rioh tlv held that the e e d r h 3 n e I I u nd ent

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6'L2'2O22 passed in W.P'No'276O2 ol 2O19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Natgonda District' which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 ot 2023 dated 1O'1O'2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated Og.OA.2O24 in SLP No'32847 ot 2024'

19. T e m t t e x u H ri Kri Tr tv. t o Ma r ht t rs re R 20 u 3 9 n d n 10 h t n N "100. The High Article 226 of t power to issue mandamus, uta e h d oe Cou rts exercising their iurisdicti he Constitution of India, not onlY a writ of mandamus or in the. x -bo n t b c e a o t r r n r w r on u nder have the nature of cl e t x u r ls 26 SN. J s'p- 12076 2021 d iscretion conferred uoon it bv a statut( a Dolicv decision of the Government or t such discretion mala de- or o I conside ration. or a rule, or as exercised lrrelevant

101. In all such cases, the High Court musl ssue a writ oF mandamus and give directions to compel f erformance in an appropriate and lawful manner of .he discretion conferred upon the Government or a public . uthority."

20. The Division Bench of this Court in ts Judqment dated 1O.O 6.2013 oassed in W.A.N os.782 of llOlO and 854 ot 2Ot2 while uohold ino the Judoment date I O8.O9.201O Dassed in W.P.No.24377 ot2 OO7 and C.C.l!o.48 of 20O8 observed as under:- "Further, it is manifest from the material ort record that the services of the similarly placed persons who ap ,roached the law Courts were regularized. The a ppella nt-Corpo r rtion also issued various office o rders/circu la rs dated 20.12.19 19, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for egularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seer that Section 25- T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practic€' ry any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factua scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents fo- such a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is r rthing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of S::tion 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Single ludge while relyin 3 on the decisions of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respon lents are entitled to regularization as directed in the impugn: .l orders, as the learned single ludge considered all the aspec-r of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in oLr considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals. '

21. The Division Bench of this Court ir I dated1 I o9 .2 o L7 2s nW .P.N o.27 2L7 of 20L7 its Ju qment E_. v 21 S\. J wp 12076 2021 r 2 2 A D a e2 2a n observed s under:- trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is " 16. It is binding throughout the countrY under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. it is noteworthy that bY the time the supra), was rendered, the udgment in Uma Devi's case ( rovisions of Act 2 of 1994 an G.O. Ms. No.212, dated d p 2 2.4.1994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorPtion of f persons, who entered service throu gh back doors bY giving a I o-bye to the due Procedure Presc ribed for apPointments to public Posts, one-time consciously o rdered absorption/regu larization of tllose, who were working for a period of not less than 10 Years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Gov ernments and also Union of India' The Supreme Court is Presum ed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, daled 22 .4.t994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgmen t in tJma Devi's case (suPra). But still, it has not made anY exc eption in favour of the States where regu la rization/absorption exist State enactments banning s r 9 hittle down the width and the 22.4.t99 B 2 do not ini' .2 G u t res onde ts to ake s elter nder Act2ot L99 and fi d v n d N .2L .4 4 h n f d t f Dev i's ca (suo a). .o. n

18. For the aforementi in OA No.1442 of 2014, oned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2017, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside Um Devi's case ( suDra). This orocess must be comp ted 3 t h f this order." o t. 28 \. SN, J \+ 12076 202 r

22. The Division Bench of this Court dated 21 .o4.2020 oassed in [. A.Nos,1 oI 2O2O in 1 of 2019 s Judoment t and W .P.No.23O 7 ot 2OL9 reoorted in 2020 4)ALD Daqe 379 at oaras 45, 48 and oara 5O observe das ! nder:- "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have ::en working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almo; (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimunr -ime-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously ' rorking wlthout any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till d 3 .e. 48. It is not know whv the lst resoo r dent has not e (supra), as followed the decision in Uma Devi's ca explained in M,L. Kesari's case (suora) an undertak ena one-time exercise of oreoarino t e list rf dailv waoe orked for mo re tharr ten ( 1O) vears emolovees who had _ ribunals as on 10.4.20 o5 and subiect them to a Dr cess v( rification as to wheth r thev are workinq aqainst va(; nt oosts and ( sts, and if so, possess reouisite oualifications for the D reoularize their services. n noft s (

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is alloweJ the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st re:londent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of ei-vices on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles t4, 16 and 21 of the Constitutior of India; the resDondents are dir cted to reoul rize or1 one-time basis Detitioners' servrces from the date each c,l the oetitioners comolete 10 vears of service on da ilv y'aoes from the ft heir aDDointmen t. But. t ev shall not be initial dateso entitle to anv mon tarv relief . T e said g xercise shall be ) weeks from the da :e of receipt of done within two (2 coDv of t e order. " I

23. This Court oDine that in the ores ent case resoondents f ailed to discharq e their dut l ]n exa mlntno rqqFw'Tz ,,. - 29 SN, J wP t20?6 202 t the req uest of the petitioner for requlari ation of petitioner's services, who is workinq as full time sweeoer n furthe er his re uest to tr m orar service of the oetitioner in the last orade Dost of full time r r lar one fo r b av with oeriodical inc men rev sed from time to time from the date of appoin tment of the Det tioner, in accordan ce to law.

24. This Cou rt ooines that oetitioner is entitled for consid eration of Detitioner's case for orant of the relief as praved for in the present Writ Petition in view of the observations of the Apex Court in various i udqments of the ( referred to and extracted above) and the va Division Bench of this Court in the Judoments referred to and extra ed above.

25. Takino into c n sideratio n 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 standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 # 'GLn I 30 \ SN. J \\t t2076 2021 c) The observations of the Apex Court in 'he various judgments (referred to and extracted abov€' and again ehlisted below: 'zors scc online sc L797 i)(202O) l SCC (L&S) riii rggo(z) scc Page 396 iiiit 2025 rNsc 144 ii"i 2O24 LawSuit(sc) 1209 iv) (2017) l scc 148 ivit zoro(g)scc247 i"iir rzors) 14scc 6s iviii) iix) (zors) 8 scc 26s iri eoL4) 7 scc 223 il-p tto.gzg+7 ot 2024 triil ain 2o2o suPreme court 3969 (xiii) (20O6) 4 SCC 1 jxiv) )orr (1) ALD, Pase234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD Page 282 (rii) zozo(4)ALD Page 379 The Division Bench order of this Court dated passed in W.A.Nos.782 ot 2O10 and 854 of uploading the Judgment dalr d O8'O9'201O 2012 while passed in w.P'No.2 4377 oJ 2OO7 and C'C' rlo'48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above)'

10.06.2013 d) e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 19.09.2017 passed in W'P'No'27217 of 2'JL7 (retetred to and extracted above), ,q{-. 3t SN, J \tp 12076_2021 f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l ot 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 ot 2OL9 (referred to and extracted above). g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order. The Writ Petation is allowed, the Deti ioner is directed to put-forth the claim of the oeti ioner for reo u !a rization of Detitioner's services, and also the claim of the DEtition e r to tre at th et MDorarv servrces e of the Detationer in the last qrade oost of continqen t Sweeper as o e for all ses b r r with oeri dica! increments r vised from time to time from the date of apDointment of the Detitioner and all conseoue ntial benefits. dulv enclosino all th releva nt ln su I etitaon f as ut- r se t writ within a e o1 from the date of receiDt of coov of the order and the en ssh rne an accordan e to law, in conformitv with orincioles of natural rovid i n n unit of I ffi. p SN. J $p 12076 2021 the Detitio er, in terms of orders assed b _ the SuDreme D Court in Uma Devi's case reoorted in 2O (J6(4', SCC Paqe 1, the iudqment passed in W.P.No.24377 oi 2OO7 dated 08.O9.2O10 reported in 2O11 (1) ALD, Paq! 234 and as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 10, )6.2O13, and also as per Division Bench Judqment of th Lr Court dated t9.O9.2O17 passed in W.P.No.272L7 of 20 7 reported in 2O18(2)ALD paqe 282 and also the Di ,isior Bench Judqment of this Court dated 21.04.2020 oassed in I.A.Nos.l ot 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 in W.P.No.il ]O57 of 2019 reported in 2O2O(4)ALD paqe 379 which had attained finalitv, within a period of four (O4) weeks 'rom the date of receiot of a coov of this order, dul', takinq into consideration he observations and the lavv laid down bv t the Aoex cou rt in the various iudqments ( r lferred to and extracted above). a d in oarticular, oarar No.53 of the iudoment of the A nc'x Cnrtrt ,n lhp ra > of State of Karnataka v Uma Devi and dulv corr municate the decision to the Detitioner. However, theJ: shall be no order as to costs. T \,' 33 SN, J wp _12016-2021 Miscellaneous Petitions, if ar]Y, pending in this writ Petition, shall stand closed' SDI-U. SUDHA SISTANT REGISTRAR AS (7 SECTION OFFICER NANDA /TTRUE COPY// one fair ".or - 11i1:i;?:5J-[:"'*l:]'3"",1'"rttALLr To, or r er ans ana' Pan ch avath rai Departm ent' t +:i"ru[f Y 3,":tllll'"[] it IX&iJate 2. rhe Ghief Executive on."t ln" Ztta P ftia",'::::: "'*:i':: :::: 1#J*:l5i,F[ilg"lsffen:t$;Trfi :X8Jf Vlls,',"il:F3i:i'fll' 4. 11 L R copies I ltigt"r-t u 7. One CC to Sri CH. Ganesh' Advocate [OPUC] .ui"""??:1"""&l?::ii,"f,1y:lrasu'a'":1"1:-Hishcourtf 9. One CC to Sri K e"O""O"ntOa'' SC tor fOZpp MPP GPPSTOPUCI cretau' Union or tndia' Ministry or Law' [[f;o,i,i,i'fitifl*rJf}'nn'n" Advocates Association Library' Hish court . r:-:^+-, af r aw. Justice and company

10.Two CD Copies TJ BS r .) ,\ -J '/ HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:1 810712025 ORDER WP.No.12076 of 2021 !.i- q Te i,i 0 2 BEI 2825 ,/. /.' ,.- ii.i il \.J l,\,.., -t ALLOWING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS