1. Ch. Shekar Babu v. 1. The Vice Chairman

vacancies, extended service benefits earlier, and are entifled to regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212 of tgg4 and G.O.Ms.No.LlZ, and though this Court in W.p.No.27217 of 2017 and w.P.No.47675 of 2018 directed reguraritation of similarly placed employees, despite repeated representations made by the petitioners, the respondents failed to act upon the same. Aggrieved by same, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD: .\_.-. -.- I ! I ( 4 SN,J w.P.No.l lJ52 of2023

5.............. Accordingly this respondent has cancelled the regularization orders of the Petitioners along with other regularized persons vide proceedings A/ 125011996, dated. 12-09-2003 and continued them as NMRs. I TT ! I 1 7- . The l't Petitioner completed 3 years 6 months and the 2nd Petitioner completed 4 years 10 months as on 25-11-1993 having qualification of Bth class by both the Petitioners. h Subsequently on the request of the Petitioners, this Respondent has submitted the proposals to the Government for regularization of their services though they have not completed 5 ) SN,.I W.P.No.l1352 of 2023 years of service as on cut-off date 2S-L1-1993 as per G.O.Ms.No.212

5. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 places reliance on the averments made at paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.l and contends that the respondent No.1 had forwarded proposals pertaining to the regularization of the petitioners, however, the same had been rejected by the Government on the ground that the petitioners had not fulfilled the conditions as per the G.o.Ms.No.2l2, dated 22.0,4.1994 and G.O.Ms.N 0.249, , dated o8.o7 -2oo4- subsequenfly, on the request of the petitioners, respondent No.1 again submitted the proposals to the Government for regularization of the petitioners' services, however, the Goverriment had not taken any steps in terms of the judgments of the Apex Court on the subject issue. I l I I 6 SN,J !l.P.No.l1352 of2023 6 ed Assistant Government Pleader ppearing on behalf of the respondents submits that a in view of the fact that the petitaoners did not satisfy 'the criteria as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.0'4.1994, the petitioners are not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition and further that the case of the petitioners for regularization of services had been considered by the respondent No.2 and had been rejected since the petitioners had not fulfilled the criteria as laid down under G.O.Ms.No.212, dated

22.04.1994 and the petitioners had not challenged the said orders as on date.

7. 'l n the oetitioners' reouest for the reoularization / t 7 SN,J W.P.No.t I352 of 2023 \ I SN,J lV.P.No.l ll52 of 2023 r raar rir.a +zr ha fil aA Il tr6 --GZtc rl, I

8. i). i] 4 "12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regutar, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the I 9 SN,J lV.P.No.llJ52 of202J appellants tenure, underscorang indispensable nature of their work.

13. The claim by the resoondents that these were not reoular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work oerformed bU the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning 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)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 wlre 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 underscore$ the principie that the nature of the work perf6rmed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, shiluld determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It hiqhliohts the judiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensurino that workers receive fair treatment. I I \ I 10 SN,J W.P.No.l lJ52 of 202J

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to cuftail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categoricallv held that emplovees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in dulv sanctioned oosts and had served continuously for more than ten vears should be considered for regularization as a one- time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, judgment's explicit overlooking the acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective aoplication distorts judgment's spirit and puroose, effectivelv weaoonizing it against emplovees who have rendered indispensable services over 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 legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, prom<ite job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards .rr ) SN,J W.P.No.l lJ52 of 202.] and sets a positive precedent for the private to follow, thereby contributang to the sector rment of labour practices in the overall country.

28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated

27.1O.2018 are quashed; ll. would be counted for their oost- ii) 2l nl ,nrE ;anar.lad in ? ,E tNGa lAL ia r\d,.tiFrir?n n.artirrrl.a ralaraaf Nac lE +^ "15. It is manifest that the Apoellant Workmen the Em r's failure furnish such rds- t2 SNJ u.P.\o.l lJ52 of 202J dac nila A raalianc aa-: !la wrE 'it ll-establ ished labour i nferenc iurisprudence. Indian labour law stronolv disfavors Deroet ual dailv-wa e or contract ual enoaqements ln circumstances where the work is Dermanent in llv, workers who fulfi! nature. Morallv and le r vear onooinq municioal reoui ments vear a cannot e dismissed summarilv as dis ensable, oarticularlv in the absence of a oenuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in ,aggo 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 tindermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but'also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust In governmental operations.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted foims of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal rreeds, they have increasingly become a mechanism ,4 l3 Sn-'J \Y.P.No. t 1352 of 2023 to 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: . Misuse of "TemDora rv" Lahels: Emolovees and integral to the functioning of an institution ,, misclassification deprives workers of the dignitv, security, and benefits that reoular emplovees are entitled to, desoite performing identical tasks. o 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 significant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield: I Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. " l4 SN,J $.1'.No.l lJ52 of!02J

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.

17. ln light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adherlng to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were enoaoed in I I i i l5 SN.J W.P.No.l 1352 of 202J 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, 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 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 50o/o of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. ,) initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizino the Aooellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have performed rraclc Tn rcaaaat6a ?alla f lra that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required. the Respondent Employer shal! expedite all necessarv administrative orocesses l6 SN,J lY.P.No.l1352 of202J to ensure these longtime emplovees are not indefinitelv retained on dailv waoes contrarv to uitable norms. statutorv and

19. ln 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." iai) The Judqment of the ADex Court dated

19.08.2025 Dassed in Civil Appeal No.8558 of 2018 reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1735 in "Dharam Sinqh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another", in a rticu !a r the relevant r N 1 nd2 r extracted hereunder: "19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regu la risations, we issue the following directions: i! i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Cominission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres. Class-III (Driver or , / t7 SN.J W.P.No.l lJ52 of 202J equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above. ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2OO2 until the date of regularization/retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in defat{t, the unpaid amount shall carry compou.nd interest at 60lo per annum from the date of default until payment. and other terminal dues. The rbvised pension and t8 sN,J \\.P.No.llJ52 of2023 terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judoment. iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other apoellant who has representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgment. v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgment. $

20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling "reconsiderations," and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that lustice in such cases cannot . rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a fc--. / t9 SN,J W.P.No.lll52 ot2023 constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles L4, 16 and 2L of the Constitution of India."

9. A bare perusal of the averments made at para No.8 of the counter affidavit filed on behaff of the respondent No.1 indicates that .there is a clear admission at para No.8 of the counter affidavit fired on behalf of the respondent No.l that the Znd petitioner had been engaged as NMR from 2O.O1.1989 and the 1st petitioner had been engaged as NMR from

24.05.1990 and since, petitioners had not compteted five years of service as on 25.1L.lgg3t the cases of 20 SN,J W.P.No.l1352 of2023 the petitioners for regularization of services cannot be considered by the respondents.

10. This Court opines that petitioners are entiUed for consideration of petitioners' cases for regularization of petitioners' services in view of the observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and also in view of the clear admission at para No.8 of the counter affidavit filed by the 1't respondent that the 1't respondent had been engaged as NMR from 24.05.1990 and the 2nd petitioner as NMR from 2O.O1.1989, and hence, petitioners are entiUed for consideration of petitioners' cases for reqularization of petitioners' services as per. the observations at para No.53 of the judgment reported in 2006 (4) SCC Page 1 in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi without reference to the rejection orders passed by the Government on an earlier occasion. (' 2t SN,J W.P.No.l1352 o12023

11. This Court opines that rejection of the request of the petitioners by the Government on an earlier occasion and the pleas put-forth by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed by the 1"t respondent that the petitioners failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria as laid down in G.O.Ms.N o.2L2, Fin.Dept, dated

22.O4.L994t since the petitioners had not completed five years of service as on 25.11.1993 are untenable and rejected since the same is contrary to the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment, dated 19.09.2O!7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2OL7 whereunder it is specifically observed at para No.16 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 (1 supra) was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O.Ms.No. 2t2t dated 22-O4-L994t were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of persons, who entered service through backdoors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for onetime absorption/ regularization of those, who were working for a period of not C- a 22 SN,J w.P.No.l1352 of2023 less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O.Ms.No. 212, dated 22-04-1994, while giving directions in para No. 53 of the judgment in Uma Devi (1 supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning ore, Act 2ot reg u larization/a bsorption exist. The 1994 and G.O.Ms.No. 212. dated 22.O4.1994. do not whittle own the width and the iudqment in lrrr,uarth Mrni ula B r Suoreme Court in Para 53 of its iudoment in Uma Devi (1 suDra). It is, therefore, not De rmissible for the resoondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22-04-1994. ni /? cr rnr a \ a have, adm edlv, satisfied the criteria laid down ulariza n o.53 h ition r tinUm :] suDra). L2. This Court opines that the subject issue requires examination and reconsideration by the respondents herein in accordance to law, within a reasonabte period.

13. A bare perusal of the record also indicates that the petitioners have not represented to the respondents herein as on date pertaining to the grievance of the petitioners as put forth by the petitioners in the present writ petition as rightly , 23 sN,J W.P.No.t1352 of 2021 pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. L4. (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Standing counsel for Kakatiya urban Development Authority appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-rII, appearing on behalf of a respondent No.2, (c) The averments made at paragraph No.5 of the counter affidavit filed on behatf of the respondent No.l(referred to and extracted above), 24 SN,J $.P.No- l1352 of 2023 (d) The observations made in the Apex Court Judgments (referred to and extracted above and enlisted below), i. (2006) 4 scc 1 ii. 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 iii. 2025 rNsc 144 iv. 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1735 v. Judgment, dated 19.09.20107 passed in W.P.No.272l7 ot 2Ol7 in UVSR Prasad and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in 2018(2) ALD Page 282, which refers to para No.53 of the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi for consideration of the request of the petitioners thereunder for regularization of their services. vi. Judgment, dated O8.O9.2O1O pqssed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 in Kodali Raju and Others Vs. APSRTC Hyderabad and Others reported in 2O11(1) ALD Page 234 as confirmed vide Division Bench judgment of this Court, dated 1O.O6.2O13 passed in W.A.No.782 ot 2O1O and W.A.No.854 of 2OL2, which refers to para No.53 of the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs, Uma Devi for consideration of the request of the petitioners thereunder for regularization of their services. 25 SN,J W.P.No.l 1352 of 2023 vii. The Division Bench judgment of this Court, dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.No.Ol of 2O2O in O1 of 2O19 in C.Mahendar and Others Vs.Potti Sreeramulu Telugu University Hyderabad and Others reported in 2O2O(4) ALD Page 379, which refers to para No.53 of the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi for consideration of the request of the petitioners thereunder for regularization of their services. (e) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at para Nos. 5 to 12 of the present order. ! 26 SN,J \1'.P.No.llJ52 of 2023 as to costs. I ( 27 SN,J W.P.No.t 1352 of 2023 The miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To Warangal, Warangal District. Hyderabad, State of Te-langana'

1. The Vice Chairman, Kakatiya Urban, Development Authority (KUDA)' 2. The prl .Secretirv] (tr,tA anO UD) Department, Secretariat Buildings, 3. d;-cb io'snlAnVlND K[,rvlAR KArA, {d-vqcir!e.L9tqq]^^. .^. 4. o;; ca io lras. nalczn snFtuLLrA BA|G, s9 FoB KqD^loPugl , 5. Two ccs to cp"ibilSEnvicES-ilt, Hiejn court for the st-ate of relangana, at 6. Two CD CoPies Hyderabad. [OUT] PSK. GJP , ) HIGH COURT DATED:1 310812025 ORDER WP.No.11352 of 2023 -fr-t5 s T4 .4. e oR c o (J f,0 tot 45 z * !\ '1 * P.{rcHrD DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 0 a6 IJ Jas-