The High Court · 2025

Order

Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioners. learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.6.

2. The oetitio ers aDDroached the Court seekino Draver as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the in action of the respondents in not implementing the New PRC scales of 2020 to the petitioners herein even after implementing the "Equal Pay for Equal Work" as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court based on the Article 39 (d) & 43 of our Constitution by sanctloning minimum time scale of Last Grade post as per GO. Ms. No. 10 PR& RD (PTS) Dept dt:04-01-2020, as highly illegal, irregular, u nconstitutiona I against the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play and prays to direct the respondents herein to pay the salary of the petitioners according to the new PRC scales of 2020 @ Rs.19,00O/- to Rs. 67,300/- with usual allowances + 4 SN,J wP l l37E 2023 crements rd other Division of 2017 2019 in DA.HRA & CCA, arrears along with periodical ir revised from time to time with arrears a monetary benefits as per the orders of the Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.26788 dt.10-08-2017, and orders in I.A.No.1 & 2 o W.P.No.38763/2078 in C.A. No. 642/2Ot9 c'r 24-O1- 2O2O, and the Division Bench Judgment of ttt ; Hon'ble Court in batch of cases In WP No. 5556 of 20.1 I & batch dt.23-08-2018, and pass such order or ordrrr j as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and prop( I in the circumstances of the case. " Learn : ralf of the Detitioners Dlacino reliance on the avermr: rts made in the affidavit filed in suooort of the presentl vrit Detition Dertaininq in oarticular, to the services r endered by oetitioners with the resoondents herein for_ nore than a decade contends that the petitioners are_ entitled for lief as r in the I )tition. PERU ED THE RECORD:- DISCUS SION AND CONC LUSION:- 4. Learned counsel aDDearino on bri ralf of the Detitioners submits t at the subiect issue ir! the present case is souarelv covered by the order o[ this Cou rt, "''7 of 2OO7 dated O8.O9.2O1O oassed in W.P.No.243 5 SN,J wP I t3'18 2023

reDorted in 011(1) ALD. Paoe 2?4 as confirmed in W.A.No.7 82 of 201O. dated 1O.05.2O13 and a lso order, dated 1 9.o9.2O17 oassed in W.P.No.272L7 oJ 2OL7 reoorted in 2 18 (2) ALD Paoe 282 and lso the order, dated 2 L.O4.2O2O oassed i n w .P. o. 3O57 of 2O19 N 2 reDorted in 2O2O( 4) ALD Paoe 379.

5. Learned standi no cou nsel aooearino on behalf of the resoondent No.6 submits that the o rievance of the oetitioners as Dut-forth in the oresent Writ Petition had not been addressed to the resoondents herein as on date and therefore thED etitioners cannot comolain inaction on the Dart of res ndents herein in DO h n + n rGa n n r the etationer in he n Wit petition cannot be qranted and no Mandamus can be issued aoainst the resoo ndents hereu nder as souoht for and the tioners mav be directed t out-forth the petitioners' qrievance as Dut-forth in the oresent Writ Petition bv wav of a detailed rEDresentataon to the resDon dents herein and uDo n rece D of the said 6 SN,J wP l1378 2023 reDresenta tion, the resoonden would (:onsider the same in accordance to law, within a reasonil rle o riod. 6 Learned counsel aoDearino on be ralf of the petitioners does not dispute the said subnl ssion made tI the le rn rrn be alf of the resoo dent No.5.

7. The Aoex Court in the iudqment reoortgd in (202O) lSCC( ) in Prem Sinoh v St te of Uttar I lradesh and others, at Dara 35 held as under: "36. There are some of the employees who been regularized in spite of having rendered tlrr for 30-40 or more years whereas they fi superannuated. As they have worked in :l charged establishment, not against any project, their services ought to have been re under the Government instructions and even a decision of this Court in State of Karnatak Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decisicr down that in case services have been rendere,l than ten years without the cover of the Court':; one-time measure, the services be regularizt:, employees. In the facts of the case, those : who have worked for ten years or more shc been regularized. It would not be proper tt them for consideration of regularization as ol.t been regularized, we direct that their s€ treated as a regular one. However, it is made they shall not be entitled to claiming anv difference in wages had they been continued regularly before attaining the age of supera They shall be entitled to receive the pension , have retired from the reoular establishrI the services rende d bv them rioht fron rave not services ve been e work- ra rticu la r 3ularized ; per the I has laid for more order, as of such nployees uld have regulate ers have /ices be lear that dues of r service t n uation. s if they ent and I the dav r ( 7 SN,J wP r 1378 2023 thev entered the wo -charoed establishment qflension."

8. The Dex C urt tn the o se o fDh a rw ad D rict PWD Literate ailv Waoe EmD !ovees Association Vs. State of Karnataka reoorted in1 9O(2) SCC Paoe 396 !aid I t the or adh no ke a fo lon n treat such Dersons as reo ular one.

9. Para No.53 of the of the udoment of the Aoex Court in the State of Karn ataka andot he Vs. Umadevi. I dated 1O.()4. 2OO6 reDorte din 2006 4SCClis extracted hereunder:- 1 n 7 "53. One as be cases where irreoular aDDointmen aooointments) as exolained in S.V. needs to be clarified. There mav (not illeoal aravanaDDa R.N. N n 1 72 L SCC 4O9l and B.N. Naoaraian 1L979 4) SCC s07] and referred to in oara 15 above, of dulv oualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts maqht have been made andth eem Dlovees have r more but work for ten vears continued without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribuna ls. The ouestion of reoularization of the services of such emolovees mav have to be considered on merits in the lioht of the orincioles settled bv this Court in th e case s abovereferred to the Union of India the State Governments and ent. In hat n eli h 8 SN,J wP 11378 2023 r n n ear orm their in trumentalities should take steps to reou la riz as a one-time m asure, the services of such irreoularlv aDDointed. who have: worked for , rsts but not under cover of ordersofthe courts ol _ of tribunals and should further ensure t ,t reqular I ose vaca nt oosts that reou re to be 1 illed up, in sa nction cases where temoorarv emolovees or g ailv waoers are beino now employed. The orocess_ nust be set in motion within six months from this r ate. .... 10. The iudoment of the Aoex Court dated _1.O.t2.2O24, reported in 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 in Jaqg r Anita and others v. Union of India and others, and ! he relevant ertak n l oaraqraoh Nos,12, 13, 24, 26, 27 and 28 al e extracted hereu nder: "12. Despite being labelled as "part. workers," the appellants performed t:l essential tasks on a daily and contin r basis over extensive periods, ranging I over a decade to nearly two decades. I engagement was not sporadic temporary in nature, instead, it recurrent, regular, and akin to responsibilities typically associated sanctioned posts. Moreover, respondents did not engage any ,l personnel for these tasks during appellants tenure, underscoring indispensable nature of their work. 13. The claim bv the resoondents _ that these were not reoular oosts lacks rn erit, as the nature of th work oerformed b1 the aopellants was oerennial and fundamg ntal :ime ( 9 SN,J wP 11378 2023 I to the functioni o 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 (gth Cir. 1996)] serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It hiohliqhts the iudiciarv's role in rectifvinq such misclassifications and th t w receive fair treatment. l0 SN,J wP tt378 2023 C:l h ents. who were enc While the judgment in Uma Devi 'r upra) to curtail the practice of ba< kdoor and ensure appointments adher -.d to rat its :d to ;ular"

26. sought entries constitutional principles, it is regrettable : principles are often misinterpretec misapplied to deny legitimate claims ot serving employees. This judgment ainr distinguish between "illegal,, and "irr,l appointments. I a ular a DOan rs in In as However, the la Cable intent of the judgment is being subvertecl institutions rely on its dicta to indiscrim it reject the claims of employees, even in :ases where their appointments are not illegrr , but merely lack adherence to proct formalities. Government departments oftrr r cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argrr, r that no vested right to reg ularization exist; for temporary employe €s, overlooking the judgment' s explicit acknowledgment of :ases regularization is appropriate. This i

27. In light of these considerations, ir opinion, it is imperative for goveil departments to lead by example in pror, fair and stable employment. Engaging w,: on a temporary basis for extended perr especially when their roles are integral k organization's functioning, not only contra\ international labour standards but also exg the organization to legal challenges undermines employee morate. By enst 'kers iods, 11 SN,J wP ll37E 2023 fair employment practaces, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, 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 posative precedent for the pravate sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.

24. 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

27.10.2018 are quashed; h [. rthwith. H The appellants shall be taken back on dutv forthwith and req ula rised servrces v r shall not be entitled to anv oecuniarv benefits/back waqes for the oeriod thev have not worked for but would be entitled to continuitv of se ices for the said oeriod and the same would be counted Dost- retira I nefits."

11. The Judoment oftheA I,C x Court dated 31.O1.2O25 reoorted in 2O25 I NSC 144 in "SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM. G HAZIABAD", in Darticular, the relevant para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder: SN,J wP i 1378 2023 v the Emolo rds-d sDite "15. It i mani st that the Aooellillt Workmen continuouslv rendered their services_ )ver vera I vears, so etimes sDannr o mor Even if ce tnm ster rolls wer full. adverse inference under well-e th a n deca de. no oroduc ed in 'li rrnishs ch r's irectio sto o s( -allo san blli ;hed labour v stronqlv In contractua I enqaqements in circu mstances wherr the work is oermanent in nature. Morallv and leo3 llv. workers who fulfil onoo tn mu nt uir ( ments vear s! mmarilv as a Dart cularlv in th ien2 a oen tne co tractor aqreem nt. A t thi; juncture, would be appropriate to recall the broa,j lr critique indefinite "temporary" employment practir:, rs as done a recent judgement of this court in Jaggc v. Union India in the following paragraphs: ioal r r vear cannotbed rsmrs e d it "22. The pervasive misuse o temporary employment contracts, as exemplifierr in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue ,:l at adversely affects workers' rights and job sec Jrity. In the private sector, the rise of the gig ecl tomy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterizecl by lack of benefits, job security, and fair tr€i tment. Such practices have been criticized .,r r exploiting workers and undermining laborri standards. Government institutions, entrusted rt th upholding the principles of fairness and justice. lear an even greater responsibility to avoid sucl exploitative employment practices. When public s 3ctor entities 13 SN,J wP I 1378 2023 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: o Misuse of "Tem oorarv" Labels: Emolovees enoaqed for work that is essential, recurrinq, and inteqral to the functioninq of an institution are often labelled as "temporarv" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of reoular emolovees. Such misclassification deorives workers of the dioniW. securitv. and benefits that reqular are entitled to, despite emolovees tical tasks . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practlce 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 significant. t4 SN,J wP I 1378 2023 . Using Outsourcing as a Shiell : Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing r: es performed by temporary employees, effectivel,r replacing one set of exploited workers with i nother. This practice not only perpetuates explo t rtion but also demonstrates a deliberate effort t I bypass the obligation to offer regular employme rt. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benef t employees are often denied fundarr such as pension, provident fund, hee and paid leave, even when their decades. This lack of social security and their families to undue hardshilt cases of illness, retirement, c,t circumsta nces. " i: Temporary rntal benefits th insurance, :enure spans ubjects them especially in u nforeseen

16. The High Court did acknowledge tt inability to justify these abrupt Consequently, it ordered re-engagement () with some measure of parity in fit Regrettably, this only perpetuated precar Appellant Workmen were left in a margirr yet still uncertain status. While the recognized the importance of their work i eventual regularization, it failed to continuity of service or meaningful back wa commensurate with the degree of stattrl evident on record. e Employer's term ination s. r daily wages rimum pay. ousness: the rlly improved High Court nd hinted at rfford them Jes ory violation L7. In light of these considerations, ttt I Employer,s discontinuation of the Appellant Workn r n stands in violation of the most basic labour law princ ples. Once it is established that their services wer( terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6lrl of the U.p. l5 SN,J wP r 1376 2023 nnot be releoated Industrial Disputes Act, t947, and that they were enqaqed in essential, oerennial duties, these workers oeroetual uncerta i ntv. While concerns of muni cioal budqet and comDliance with recruitment rules merit consideration. such concerns do not absolve the Emolover of statutorv obliqations or neqate Indeed. bureaucratic eouitable entit ements limitations cann ot trum D the leoitimate riohts of workmen who have served continuouslv in de facto reoular roles for an extended period.

18. The imo uo ned order of the Hioh Court. to the thev confine the Aooellant Workmen to extent ur d it ement without on tn or meaninoful back wa es, is herebv set aside with the followino 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, 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 judg ment. Their entire period of absence (from the date of termination until actual t6 SN,J wP I t378 2023 ICe an g cunted for ! onseouential _:lioibiliW for reinstatem nt) shall be f serv con inuitv d all ben efits, s chass n ioritv and Dromotions, if a nv. lII. Considering the length oF service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitlerl to 50o/o of the back wages from the date of their ( iscontinuation until their actual reinstatement. Ti e Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesa ( dues within three months from the dat : of their reinstatement. IY'Jhe Resoondent Emolover i.; initiate a fair and transparenl:_ rgoularizinq the Apoeflant Wor:] six months from the date of ri2 dulv considering the fact thal oerformed oerennial municioal t! permanent Dosts. In re ula riz tion, he Em Dlover shal educatio al Drocedurir ed to orocess for 'imen within nstatement, thev have rties akin to assessi nq I not impose criteria r ents were h never aoolied to the Aooellant _ l/ork en or to similarlv situated reoular em rr..l ovees in the DA t.Tot he aca nctes for such dutie Resoondent Emolover shall g ite all necessarv administrative or1 'cesses to gnsure these lonqtime emplovl ,es are not indefinitelv retained on dailv wa.l Ies contra rv tutorv and equita ble no rm!; nt th t san iorrr rd exist or are n tou red, XD r T

19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed workmen are allowed, whereas the app,l rl(5) the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed. , by the filed by L2. Th Aoe Cou L UDreme Co rt Ca !nat udqm nt reDorte d in ( ses 148. in State of Punia 20L7) { { t7 SN,J wP u378 2023 others vs Jaoiit Sinqh and others at Paras 54 and its sub-oaras (1)(2)(3). o the said iudomen observed as t t under: "54 "The Full Bench of the High Coutt, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scale, 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 extracted hereu nder: - b n ?in otio azl htaqL< "(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, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2) But if ailw waoerc. ad hoc or contractual apoointees are not aopointed against reoular osts and their services are availed sanctioned the Ctrf:a Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient lono oeriod i.e. tor 7O vears. such dailv utzaat< entitled to minimum of the reoular oav scale without anv al lowances on the ass mDt on that work of perennial nature is available and havino worked for such lono oeriod of time. an eouitable rioht is created in such catedory of persons. Their claim r reoularization. if anv, mav have to be considered separatelv in terms of leoallv oermissible scheme. (j) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 70 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be ^F ^, ^^AlF--htzl tanain , L8 SN,J wP r t378 2023 entitled to arrears for a period of th months. " years and two

13. The iudoment of the Apex Courl. reported in 010 s 24 b K: rnataka h v K 9 reads as under: r, Dar s4to t s d 4. rendered on 70.4.20 ti, kav Umadevi was (reo rted in 2006 (4 SCC 1). In that of this Co trt held that process or the ny right on the ir absorption, t their service of jurisdiction not ordinarily or permanent en done in a I scheme; and at they do not nt of its affairs themselves to :sing of the Court further 'a daily-wage tde permanent relevant rules ostitution. This le position and appointments made without fo owing the dut rules relating to appointment did noi confer z appointees and courts cannot direct th regularization or re- engagement nor ma,,< permanent, and the High Court in exercist under Article 226 of the Constitution shou,t issue directions for absorption, regularizatio t continuance unless the recruitment had tu regular mannee in terms of the constitution, that the courts must be careful in ensuring 1 i1-rteff.ere unduly with the economic arrangerru by the State or its instru mentatities, noi ten/ be instruments to facititate the bypa constitutional and statutory mandates. ihts held that a temporary, contractual, casual c employee does not have a legal right to be rt unless he had been appointed in ierms of tf < or in adherence of Arlictes 14 and 16 of the C.c Court however made one exception to the ab,t the same is extracted below : :'53. One aspect needs to be clarifiE he cases where irreoular aooqj illeoal aooointments) as exolai., Narayanaooa 17967 (t) SbR _ Naniundaooa 17972 (tt SCC 4tl Naaarajan [7979 (4) SCC SOT| and_ DAra75a ve- o d. The mav tments (not ed in S.V. 72A1. R.N. )l an B.N. 'eferred to in f dulv ualified oe'sons in dulv t been made to work for tervention of The o estion I I a l9 SN,J wP tt37B 2023 of reoularization of the services of such emplovees may have to be considered on merits iAt fnafdm of Ae orinaoO;sa in the cases abovereferred to and in the lioht of this iudoment. In that context, the Union of the State Governmenb and their India. nstru menta lities shou ld fake stens lo teoularize as a one-time meas the services of such irreoularlv aooointed. who have worked for ten vears or more in dulv sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that reoular those vacant tecruitments are unde czn,-fianaA cases where temooraru emDlovees or dailY The orocess waarers are beino now emDlo ve must be set in motion within six months from this date. .... re ia ha JillaA

6.rcla jh-i '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 10 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 irregula r. , Umadevi Govemment or instrum to take steDs to regularize the services of those irreoularlv aooointed emolovees who had -served for more t en ten veats u tal tv. , )n SN,J wP 11378 2023 nterim orders ne measure. ,sure must be 'eda of its tderstood in its t that after the 1t or each t exercise and hoc employees ,rs without the 'ect them to a ,orking against 'ication for the t o 6. The term 'one-time measure, has to be u proper perspective. This would normally me,t decision in lJmadevi, each departmc instrumentality shoutd undertake a one-tinl prepare a list of all casual, daity-wage or acl who have been working for more thin En y= intervention of courts and tribunals and s'ub process verification as to whether they are t vacant posts and possess the requisite quatt post and if so, regularize their services.

7. At the end of six months from the dat,? Umadevi, cases of several daily-wagt employees were still pending before CourtZ. several depaftments and instrumentatities did the one-time regularization process. On t\ some Government departments or tr undertook the one-time exercise excluding sev from consideration either on the ground fhat lt pending in courts or due to sheer ovet.: circumstances, the emptoyees who were , considered in terms of para 53 of the decis,< will not lose their right to be considered fo,- merely because the one-time exercise was co1 considering their cases, or because the si : mentioned in para 53 of lJmadevi has expired exercise should consider alt daily_weg employees who had put in 10 years of contini on 10.4.2006 without avaiting the protection orders of courts or tribunals. If any emptoyt> one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of ur not consider fhe cases of some employees whr to the benefit of para 53 of lJmadevi, concerned should consider their cases also, a:; of the one-time exercise. The one time e\ concluded only when alt the emptoyees who art considered in terms of para 53 of LJm. considered. of decision in /ad-hoc/casual Consequently, not commence ) other hand, ;trumentalities tral employees eir cases were ight. In such 'ntitled to be n in Umadevi, regularization, pleted without month period The one-time e/adhoc/those ous service as tf any interim had held the adevi, but did were entitlAd lhe employer ) continuation =rcise will be entitled to be 7evi, are so ( 21 SN,J wP 11378 2023 ti rt,,tt

8. The obiect behind the said direction in paru 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure that those who hawc .!rrt in rnore tha n torl wo2rc ,af ion sse wi?a without the orotection of anv interim orderc of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered. are considered for regularization in view of their lono service. Second is to ensure that the deoartments/instrumentalities do not oeroetuate the Dractice of emplovino Dersons on dailv-waqe/ad- hoc/casual for lonq Deriods and then oeriodicallv reqularize them on the sround that thev have served far ntara constitutional or statutorv Drovisions telatinq to recruitment and aopointment, The true effect of the direction is that all Dersons who have worked for more than ten vears as on 7O.4.2OOG fthe date of decision in Umadevil without the orotection of anv interim order of anv court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessinq considered for reoularization. The fact that the emotoyer has not undertaken such exercise pt ih an ten t artc are en *ilt6l rlcfaatirrr, ihatahtt uisite fiaali ularization ths of the dec Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken onlv in reoard to a limited few, will not disentitle such emDlovees. the rioht to be considered for regularization in terms of the above directions in adevi as aon e-time measure.

9. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or thereafter. 1O. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization 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) fulfill 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 1to 3 22 SN,J wP 11378 2023 because of the pendency of these cases, tl shall have to be considered in continuation t time exercise within three months. It is nee(t respondents do not futfitt the requirentr -the of Umadevi, their services need not employees who have compteted ten yeari possess th e ed u ca t io n a I q u a t i fi ca t io n s p rescri D at the time of their appointment, they may be regularization in suitabte lower posts. Thii ag,1 of accordingly. 'be en their cases f the said one ?ss to say that nts of Pa ra 53 rlarised. If the ;ervice do not td for the post, considered for eal is disposed L4. fn the iudqment of the Aoex Court it1 Ni al si qh and othersv.s te of Puni b reo rted in(:I 113)14 cc 65 the Supreme Court considered Hr: case of absorption of Special police Officers appoi nted by the State, whose wages were paid by Banl(; at whose disposal their services were made avaitabler, It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the liank did not render the appellants 'employees. of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. tt held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively wathin the autl ority of the State, but if the State did not choose to cr( ate a cadre but chose to make appoantments of pers,t ns creating contra€tual relationship, its action is arbitr rry. ft also u d a d Ie 23 SN,J wP n37E 2023 rct nafiri'la/ 'r,rc+c - n irrcliffar+iarr far +lra Ctata t o tila ca c6r.rra-6G the aooellants for deca de n rantha r af naanla It held that "sanctioned posts do not fall from heaven" and that the State has to create them bv a conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment of need. Referrang to Umadeva, it held that the aDDe !a nts before them were not arbatrarilv chosen. therr tnr al aooointment was not an 'irreoular' aoDoin tment a it had been made in accordance with the statutory Drocedure prescribed under the Police Act, 1861, and the State cannot be heard to sav that thev a re not entitled to be absorbed into the services of theSt te on oermanent basis as, h n w re created bv the State. It was held that the iudqment in n Umadevi cannot become a licence for exoloitation bv State an rumentalitie Governm ent of P u niab no ose oublic sector Banks can continue such a Dractice inconsistent with their 24 SN,J wP I 1378 2023 obliqation to fun ion in accor ancc: with the Constitution.

15. The scc Online S Nellore Mu m n ted in 2015 c 1797 etween B.Srinivasulu I rnd others v ration Reo. bv its C nmissioner, r nicioal Co Nell re Di strict, And hra Pradesh and _ others, in Dartacular oarasTand8r eads as u der: t1 f o. till the aDDettrnts t We find it difficult t,o acceDt the reasot (7) Lq cdoDted bv the Hi'qh Coutt. The riqh reqularization flo ws from the G.O. No. 12 dt\ ed 22,4.1994. been in service of t The a oellant ha first t esDo ndent not onlv orior to the issuance of the said r 3_ O. but even T rc respondent ) | by the G.O. red G.O. the '. ears without ( continued to 'cipality being a statutory body is obligt supra). Inspite of the above meniic Muni 212(. respondents kept quite for almost 20 regularising the service of the appellants ar extract work from the appellants. 8. In the circumstances, refusing the benel mentioned G.O. on the ground that tt approached the Tribunal belatedty, in our . justified. In the circumstances, the appe, modifying the order under appeal by diret appellants' seryices be regularised with effecr of their completing their five year continuous I laid down by this Court in District Collector / Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 4Br) t of the above e appellants )inion, is not I is allowed :ing that the From the date ervice as was )hairperson &

15. In Amarkant ivSta of Bihar reoo ted f o15) 8Scc 26s. the Su reme urt held that'Tl e objective behind the exception carved out in this ,: rse was to permit regularization of such appointmen,i which are J 25 SN,J wP I l3?E 2023 irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illega!, and to ensure securitv of emolovment hose oersons who had t h v rnm nt instrumentalaties for more than ten vears". In that case, emolovee was workin for29 vears. This decision aDDroves earlier view exore sed inM .L Kesari extracted above. L7. In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasad reoorted in (20L4) 7 SCC 223. similar view was taken bv the Suoreme Couft and it was held as follows : h la id n aiattal in ?hair ca "47.... In view of the cateoorical findino of fact on the relevant contentious issue that the respondeat annlavac< than 70 vears continuousl v therefore. the leoal nrinainla (State of Karnataka v Umadevi (20O6) 4 SCC 7 : 2OO6 SCC (L&SI 73) at oara 53 souarelv aoolies to the present cases. The Division Bench of the Hidh Court has riohtlv held that the resoondent employees are entitled for the relief- the same cannot be intertered with bY this Court." this f.\.rr.i t tmqdarti r

18. The Judgment of thas Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed an W.P.No.276O2 ot 2O19 which pertaans to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda 26 Sr'',J \\'P 37E 2023 District, which had been upheld by the Di rision Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of }.l?:g dated 10.10.2023 and also confirmed by the or ter of Apex Court dated 09.08.2024 in SLp No.32gzt I ot 2c,24. rust V

19. The ludo ment of the Aoex Cou in {ari Kris na te of Maharash tra and Others Mandir reported in AfR 2O2O Supreme Court j 969 and in d1 fol Iows: ar N h a "100. The High Courts exercisin g their juri ;diction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India irot only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the natu re of mandamus, but are dutv-bound to r: (ercise such r a Dublic orl ras wronqlv a nitbva sion of the :retion mala r h r r n I l

101. In all such cases, the High Court mL: t issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful r lanner of the discretion conferred upon the Governmer t or a public a uthority. "

20. The D tvtsion Be nch of this Court d o o w o 5 I o1 w tn rl s Judoment l rf 010 nd ( nent dated t 27 SN,J wP I l37E 2023 O8.O9.2O1O Dassed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 bserved as under:- "Further, it is manifest from the material on record that the services of the similarly placed persons who approached the law Courts were regularized. The appella nt-Corporation also issued various office orders/circulars dated 20.12.1989, 11.09.1992,06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 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 Judqment dated 19.O9.2017 oassed inW P .No. 272L7 ot 2o17 reoorted in 2O18(2)ALD paoe 282 at para 16 and para 18 observe aS under:- *16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 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/reg ula rization 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 28 SN,J wP I 1378 2023 India. The Supreme Court is presumed to !: conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, da.ed 22.4.1994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the jLrr gment in Uma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not mad: any exception in favour of the States where State enac.:t lents banning reg u la rization/a bsorption exist. Therefore, ,! ct 2 of 1994 1OO and c.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4,j 994, do not whittle down the width and the iudom() rt in Manjula Eashrni's case (suora), does not lower thg traiectorv of the directions issued bv the Suoreme Co1 rt in Para 53 uDra). It is, lents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. ! 1o.212, dated 22-4. 1994. to denv reo larization to ttrr r oetittoners, who have. admiftedlv, satisfied the critri 'ia laid down in Para No.53 of the judoment in Um; Devi's case (suora). vi's m

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27 .6.2Ot7 , in OA No.1442 of 2OL4, on the file : )f the Tribunal is set aside and the writ petition is allol red with the darection to the respondents to consider ! egularisation of the services of the petitioners aoainsl the existino vaca cies of Work In Dectors subiect to their satisfvino the criteria laicl lown in Para No.53 of the judqment in Uma Devi,s castl (suora). This Droces s must be comoleted with in two nonths from the date of receipt of a copv of this order,j nd a )Doint

22. The Division Bench of this Cou in it s Jud crment 2L.O4.20 O oassed in I.A.Nos. 1of 202O in 1 of 20L9 and W.P.No.23O 57of2 t eDorted in 2(J2(J 4)ALD oaoe 379 at Daras 45. 48 ir rd oara 50 o19 obse rved as u nder: - "45. There is no dispute that petitioners hav: been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in alrr tst (30) years of service by now. They have been given minirr um time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continr ously working without any Court orders in their favour from L )90 till date. /- ( 29 SN.J wP I l37E 2023

48. It is not known whv the 1st resDondent has not followed the decision in Uma Devi's cEse (suoia), as exolained in M.L. Kesari's case (suora) and undertaken a one-time exercise of oreparing the list of dailv wage emplovees who had worked for more than ten (1O'l 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 working against vacant posts and possess reouisate oualificataons for the oosts, and if so. reoularize their services. tlra racnan ents are dirccted to

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one-time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of oularize on India; one-time basis petitioners' services from the date each of the petataoners complete 10 vears of service on daily waoes from the initial dates of their apoointment. But. lief. Th f f h said exercise shall be done within two (2) weeks from the date of receiDt of coov of the order." hrll rr.it ha arrfilla/ n

23. This Court oDines that in thED resent case. the respondents faaled to discharoe their duw in examininq the reouest of the Detationers for reqularization of netiti atners' carrrirac w rkin as nrr* sweepers and further to consider their reouest to treat the temoorarv service of the petitioners in the last orade Dost of oart tim e sw rler as reou a r one for all DUTDOSeS bY orantino last orade Dav with oeriodical 30 SN,J wP I 1378 2023 lnc ment revas from time time ron the date of I appointment of the petitioners. in accordanl e to law.

24. This Court oDrnes that o itioner are entitled for consideration of oetitioners, case for orant:_ of the relief as praved for in the present Writ petition i1 view of the obs rvat to ns of Aoex urt ln iudo ents v r c.t ! vlew of the Div sion B nch of this Court in the Ju qme lts referred to and extracted above. n n

5.7 a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances ,f the case. b) The submissions made by the learr ed counsel appearang on behalf of the petitioners i nd learned Assistant Government pleader for S; lrvices l!, appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The observations of the Apex Court irr the various judgments (referred to and extracted abov( ) and again enlisted below: i)(2o2O) l SCC (L&S) (ii) 1990(2) scc page 396 (iii) 2025 rNSC 144 3l SN,J wP l1378 2023 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) l scc 14E (vi) 2o1o(s)scc247 (vii) (2013) l4sCc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 s0c 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2oo6) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11(1) ALD, Page234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated

10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 ot 2O1O and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dated O8.O9.201O passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 19.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.2721.7 ol 2O17 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 21.O4.2O2O passed in f.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23()57 of 2O19 (referred to and extracted above). 32 SN,J wP r 1378 2023 g) In the light of discussion and conclusir> r as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the prE sent order. The rltP et tio n is allowed- the DE itione s are to DUt-forth the claim of the orr itioners for itioners' services, ar d also the claim the Detition rs to treat th temDo lrv servlces reo ula rization of D f I of the itioners in the last orade Dost ol' Swee er as reoular one for all ouroos s bv orantinq la t qrade pav with oeriodical increments revased from me to time from the date of aopointment of the oetitirl ,rers and all a conseo uential benefits. dulv enclo ino all .1 he relevant docum nts in suooort of oetition ers' case _ rs out-forth sen w a of one (O1) t e ord r and the resDondents shalI examine and considr r the same ln acco rdance to law in conformi with ; rincioles of natural iustice bv providinq an opportunit\l of oe sonal hea ri n the SuDreme Court to the oetitio ners. n terms of orde g s oassed bv in Uma Devi's case 'eDorted in the iudo ment _ passed in 2O1O reoo din ted O8.O9 2006 4) SCC Paoe 1 t 2007 d w.P. o.24377 i3 SN,J wP t t378 2023 2OLL (1) ALD. Paqe 234 and as confirmed in A o.782 of 2O1O d ed 10. 2 1 ivision Ben h of this U

19.09.20 L7 Dassed in W.P.No.272L7 of OO7 reoorted in 2O18(2)ALD oaoe 282 and also the Division Bench d ment of 20 as ed I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 in W.P.No.23057 of 2O19 reDorted in 2O2O(4)ALD oaqe 379 which had attained finalitv, within a oeriod of four (O4) weeks from the date of receiot of a coDv of this order, dulv takino into consideration the observ ations and the law laid down bv the Aoex Court in the various iudoments (referred to extracted abov n a rticu lar ara No. the iudoment of the Aoex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v- Uma Devi and dulv com municate the decision to t e oetitaoners. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. Sd/.AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ISTANTREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTICE (For Her Ladyships Kind Peru REPALLI NANDA )

1. ll LR Copies. 2. The UMer Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company 3. Ih9 9eclelqry, Te&angana Advocates Association Li,brary, High Court Affairs, New hhi. Euildings, Hvderabad. To Hvderabad, State of Telanoana' Hvderabad, State of Telanoana' secreiiriit, Hyderabad, Govt' of Telangana' -- a. The Priircipdl Secretary, Panchayathrai Department' Te: ngana Secretariat' s riffff;ir;ri5"-i,ti.r eiJiSton Department' Telansr ra sesetariat' e i'tE"pl"lijrr S."r"t .v, ri'ni# ano Planning Departn ( nt' Telangana " l. T[: 3"n*::',:ml :l gn::iE1$#t"?lE;i[ l??:,%1 j i n a Hvd era bad, r ?#ffi ,Yg g::i,[#fl ?1131; Zi il a p raj a p-arlsh ad, N izam z rad' i0 d;E3.i{TicFt33+.*wesyim!185.yn%' s;'| ,te or reransana' at Hvderabad. [OUTI r z ij'nl"b'Cio" sh] FirnoEep REDDY KArrA, sc FoR Mt P zPP [oPUC] 13. Two CD CoPies "" PSK. PMK 4{/ CC TODAY i rtfrs 11\ iir(, G)l >ri c-f ii +;1 ,,,/ I .,.,-, , tr'-' l -: HIGH COURT DATED:2510712025 ORDER WP.No.11378 of 2023 Co 1 I ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ( \g