The High Court · 2025

Order

Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayath Rai Department, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.l, 2, and 3, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4.

2. The oetitioners aooroached the Court seekinq oraver as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 1't respondent Government in not regularizing the services of the petitioners even after regularizing the services of 5th respondent who is immediate junior to the petitioners as per g.O.ms.No.143. Panchayathraj & Rural Development (Pts. V) Department, dated 29.12.2016, based on the proposal of the 3'1' respondent vide Lr.No.695/K5.PtslzOL4, Dated 22.06.2OL5, of 3'd respondent by ignoring the seniority and service of petitioners as per the proposals dated 22.06.2OL5, as highly illegal, unjust, unfair, unconstitutiona I against the principles of natural justice and prays to direct the respondents herein to regularize the services of the 4 SN, J wP No.l4416 of2020 petitioners on par with the 5th respondent whose services were :egularized in G.O.Ms.No.143, Panchayathraj & Rural Development ( Pts.V) Department, dated 29.12.2016, with all consequential monetary benefits, including. seniority with arrears of pay on par with 5th respondent and also award exemplary costs for enormous delay in not regularizing the servic:es of the petitioners, by ignoring the seniority of petitioners and pass such order or orders in the interest of justice".

3. The case of the petitioners in brief, is that the petitioners were initially appointed as Karobari on 8.12.1982 and 01.08.19U3 respectively and completed nearly 38 years of service but the respondents did not regularize their services. The respr:ndents had regularized the services of 5th respondent herein, who is junior to the petitioners in Bill Collector post, who was appointed on 21.10.1983. The petitioners are entitled for

regulariz,ltion as per G.O.Ms.No.112, Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) Department, dated 23.07.L997. The petitioners have alr,eady completed more than three decades long service, but the respondents have not regularized their services. Aggrieverd by the action of the 1't respondent Government in not regulariz:ing their services even after regularizing the services of 5th resp,ondent by ignoring the seniority and service of the 5 SN, J WP No.14416 of 2020 petitioners, the petitioners approached the Couft by filing the present writ petition.

4. (A) "sir, Sub: Public services- Regularization of daily wage and temporary employees - Uner G.O. (P) No.112 finance and Planning (FW:PC-III) Dept., dated 23.07.L997- Regularization of proposals - Submitted - Reg. Ref:- Joint representation of Sri B. Laxminarayana, Karobari, Gram Panchayat, Keslapur of Indervelly Mandal, , Sri S. Anand Rao, Karobari, Gram Panchayat, Jainath of Jainath Mandal and Sri Ameen Ali, Karobari, Gram Panchayat, Gudihathnoor of Gudihathnoor Mandal, dated 17.09.2019. *** Through the reference cited, Sri, B. Laxminaryana, Karobari, Gram Panchayat, Keslapur of Indervelly Mandal, Sri. S. Anand Rao, Karobari, Gram Panchayat, lainath of Jainath Mandal and Sri. Ameen Ali, Karobari, Gram Panchayat, Gudihathnoor of Gudihathnoor Mandal have submitted the joint representation and informed that there are (2) Bill-Collector posts are vacant in Adilabad District and requested to regularize their services under G.O.(P) No.112 Finance and Planning (FW:PC-III) Dept., dated: 23.07.1997. In this regard, I submit that the list of (16) part time employees i.e., (11) Karobaries and (5) Kamaties, who have completed (10) years of services in erstwhile Adilaabd District has been submitted to the Government duly verifying the original records vide Government Memo 6 SN, J wP No.14436 of2020 No.570/Pts.',/A212017, Dt. 05.05.2017 services under G.O.(P).No.112 Finance Dept., datecl : 23.O7.L997. for regularization of their and Planning (FW:PC-III) Accordingly, out of the above (5) Kamaties, the Government have regularized the services of (4) Kamaties vide G.O.RI. No.615 PR&RD(PTS V) Dept., Dt. 30.08.2018 and the services of (1) Kamati has.not ber:n regularized since the crossed the age of (bd) years. Further, the Government have not considered the regulirizbtion of (11) Karobaris against the vacancies of Kamaties whiih is Class-IV services as the Karobari is a superior services and the age of superannuation of Karobaris is 58 years. In this regard I submit that (3) Karobaris of Adilabad District requested to regularize their services as Bill-Collectors in Adilabad District under G.O.(p).No.112 Finance and planning (FW:PC- III) Dept., clated: 23.07.1997. Therefore, the Commissioner of panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, Hyderabad is requested to take necessary action in the matter accc rdingly. Encl: (As above) Yours faithfully, District Panchayat Officer, Adilabad e Dire r,PR& (B) The Ietter of , vide Lr. No. 3199/CPR&RE/D2l2016, dated O6.01.2O17 addressed to fuS@ial Chief Secretarv to Government, PR&RD (pts.Vl Deoartment. Telanoana State. Hvderabad is extracted hereundeg: "Sir, Sub:- Panchayats - Regularization of the services of the part time Karobaris and Kamatis working in the Gram panchayats of Adilabad District - proposals submitied- Reg. l !. l, 7 SN. J WP No.14416 of 2020 Ref:- Lr.No.695/K5.Pts/2014, Dt.30.05.2016 & 15.09.2016 of the District Panchayat Officer, Adilabad. ** )k In the reference cited, wherein the Dpo, Adilabad has submitted the proposals for regularization of the services-of (a5) part rime employees who have completed 10 years of service as on 25.11.1993. The District Panchayat officer, Adilabad has submitted the vacancy position which is as follows: S.No. Cadre 1 2. 3 4 Sanitary Maistry (Kamati) Sanitary Maistry (Sweeper) Santiary Maistry (Scavenqers) Electrician No. of vacancies 4L 07 08 01 57 Total In this connection, it is submitted that, as per G.o.Ms.No.112 Dt.23.07.1997 the services of persons appointed on part-time basis and continuously working for a minimum period of 10 years and continuing as on 25.11.1993 shal! be regularized subject to the fulfilment of the following conditions:

1. Absorption shall be against clear vacancy.

2. The persons appointed should posses the qualifications prescribed as per rules in force as on the date frorn which his or her services have to be regularized.

3. The person should be within the age limit as on the date of appointment as Part-Time employee.

4. The Rule of Reservation wherever applicable should be followed and backlog shall be set off against future vacancies relaxed.

5. The sponsoring of candidates from Employment Exchange is In this regard, It is submitted that, out of the (45) part rime employees who have completed 10 years of service as on 25.11.1993 submitted by the District Panchayat Officer, Aditabad, record (Acquittance/ Pay Bill Register) in full shape have been produced in respect of (12) candidates only. 8 o SN, J WP No. t4436 of 2020 f:urther, the Dpo, Adirabad has arso submitted (6) proposars for regurarization of services, who were. under ug" it the time of their appointrnent' out -rf. !!: (o) proposars, recorJ'in irrr shape have been produced in respecr of (a) .inaiiriJr onrv u"a i; ;;";;."rs in respect of sri U'Satya na rayana, xa rouai--1u il";;;; proposa t ) have already been su bmitted to Govern ment vide th is office Li. rvoi i +ssglcpianel-o )ho t z, dt. os. o 7. 20 1 6, with regard to the.f:Tuin,lg rrl pioporat, it is sublnittla tnut, the candidate ig" ii.i[.s'iii,,, i;#;5be- zb.o6.issz;;; 3XX'rT'Sl::if,1 vears "r F:urther it is.submitted that, the Dpo, Adirabad has proposed the posts basing on individuars educJionar quarifications. T'he proposars submitted by the District panchayat officer, Adiraba'c has been examined w.r. to G.o.ms.wo.ttz, Dt.23.O7.Lgg7 duly ve:rifoing the originar record such as niqriiiun.e registers/pay bills/Resorution RegislerlSsc--r'[mo or Medicar certificate were submitted. After oetaiteo ""irinution, the f"r";i;g individuars were found erigibre for regurarization or services - u, tnuv furfiiled a, conditions prescribed in tne iuoro said G.o. ftre sr.ruo.1 produced originar records except o2/2oo} to o3/200g,'ir.ruo.ro produced original record except Gp Resolution. S.No. 1 2 4 5. 6 7 8 9 1 11. t2 P K P S. and Name of the individual Ga n n It is submitted that, sr.No.l3 to 15 were under age (berow 1g years) at the time of theii appointment, u, ,u.-n ine tength of service than 10 vears even after deductio;-; ;"y service and are ::dl[: With regard to the individrrals at Sl.No.16, the short fall of service after deduction uv ,"-i.. i,I ,.iil;;.il, Government are requested ro consider rhe regutailaii* "ir";#]; duly inctudins the boy service, as the short rarr 6F reirice is 9 months onry. 9 SN. J WP No.ltl436 of 2020 The details are as follows : 13 V. Sainath S/o. Mallanna Record produced 14 Shaik Ahymed S/o. Hussain Record produced 15 N. Bhasker S/o. Kande Rao Record produced 16 Ameen Ali, S/o. Abdul Ali Record submitted The individual was aPPointed at the age of 16 Years 5 months and 24 daYs as on 25.11.1993. The length of service is more than 10 Years even after deduction of boY service. The individual was aPPoi nted at the age of 15 Years 5 months and 26 daYs as on 25.L7.1993. The length of service is more than 10 Years even after deduction of boY The individual was a ppointed at the age of L7 Years 4 months and 9 daYs as on 25.LL.1993. The length of service is more than 10 Years even after deduction of boY service The individual was aPPointed at the age of t7 Years 2 months and 9 daYs as on 25.11.1993. The length of service as on 25.11.1993 is 10 years 0 months and 20 daYs. The short fall of seruice after deduction boy service is 9 months only. In view of the above, the proposals for regularization of services under G.o.Ms.No.LLz, Dt. 23.07.L997 in respect of 16 (L2+4 under age) candidates are herewith submitted to Government for taking furtirer necessary action. The proposals of the DPO, Adilabad is herewith enclosed. (issued under note orders of the Director, PR&RD)' for Director, PR& RE. (c) The letter of the District Panchayat officer. Yours faithfullY l0 Ru I Emo yment, Telan ana state, H extracted hereunder: SN. J WP No.14436 of 2020 erabad "tlladam, Srrb: - Public Services - Regularization of daily wage and temporary employees - Under G.O.Ms.No.212, Finanie and Pl.anning (F.W. pc.iii) Department, dated 22.01.i994 and G.O. (P) No.112 Fin. & ptg (Fw.pc-III) Dept., dated 23.07.1gg7 _ Minutes of meeting communicated - certain information called for-Submitted-Reg Ref:- 1. Commissioner of panchayat Raj & Rural Employment, 'dated H,Tderabad Memo No.2441lCpR & RE/D2/ZO|9, 2!;.O7.20t9. Irr compliance to the instructions issued in the reference cited, I am submifting herewith the information for regurarization oi Jairy wages and_temporary employees under G.O. Ms.ilo.212, Finance and Planning (F.W.PC-III), Department, dated 22.01.1994 and G.O. (p) No.112 Fin & ptg (FW:pC-III) Departmenr, dated 2:.OZ.tggZ in tie prescribed Proforma III & ry dated 23.07.1997 of Adirabad District ai desired. This is for favour kind information yours faithfully, District Panchayat Officer, Adilabad. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitr; that though the proposals were forwarded for regularization of services of the petitioners vide Lr.No.695,/ K5. Pts/201.4, dated 22.06.2015 and Lr.No.695/K5 .pts/ 20L4, dated 01.06.i1019, the case of 5th respondent, who is junior to SN, J wP No.14436 of 2020 petitioners, was only considered and G.O.MS.No.143, PR&RD Dept, dated 29.t2.20L6 was issued regularizing the services of the sth respondent, who is junior to petitioners, ignoring the names of the petitioners for regularization. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.

6. A bare perusal of the record indicates proposals vide letter dated 06.01.2017 were forwarded by the then Director of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development to the Special Chief Secretary to Govt, PR&RD (Pts.V) Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad pertaining to regularization of services of the Part Time Karobaris and Kamatis working in the Gram Panchayats of Adilabad District and the specific instructions were referred in the letter of the District Panchayat Officer, Adilabad vide letter dated 30.05.2016 and 15.09.2016 with regard to vacancy positions and sought for regularization of services by the Government as per the said proposals dated 06.01.2017 and as per G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 23.07.L997 in respect of 16 (12+4 under age) candidates. t2 SN- J WP No.14436 of2020

7. A bare perusal of the details forwarded in the said letter dated 06.01.2017 clearly indicates the name of the l"t petitioner at Sl.No.g and the name of the 2nd petitioner is shown at Sl.No.12 in the tabular statement of the said lefter., The contents of the letter dated 19.09.2O19 of Dastrict Panchayat Officer, Adilabad addressed to the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, Telangana State, Hyderabad specifically refers to the petitioners herein with clear observation that there are Bill Collector posts vacant in Adilabad District as on 19.09.2019 and a request is made to regularize their services as per G.O.Ms.No.112, dated 23.07.L997. But however, the petitioners services had not been regularized as on date.

8. A bare perusal of the material document dated 01.06.2019 filed by the petitioners in support of petitioners case clearly indicates service particulars for the purpose of regularization of daily wage and temporary employees having had been called for and the same indicates that the particulars were forwarded way back on 23,07.1997 by the District Panchayat Officer, Adilabad. l3 SN. J wP No.14436 of 2020 But however, admittedly no action had been taken considering the request of the petitioner for regularization of the services' "36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in sPite of having rendered the services for 30- 40 or more years whereas they have been suPerannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, their services ought to not against any particular Project, have been regularized under the Government instructions this Court in State of and even as per the decision of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3) 11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been out the cover of the rendered for more than ten years with Court's order, regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been reg ularized. It would not be ProPer to regulate them for consi deration of regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in service regularlY ages had they been continued before attaining the age of suPerannuation. TheY shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they as one-time measure, the services

10. t4 o SN, J wP No.14436 of2020 rn taka reoo in 1990(2) SCC Paoe 395 laid orinciole he State sh uld not keeo a Derson in temoorarv or aslIq oersons as reoular one.

11. Para No.53 ofthe ofthe iudoment ofthe Aoex Court hereun der:- rred to in oara 15 a "53 Ona asDect needs t.| be clarified- There mav be cases where irreoular ooointments (n t illeoal aooointments) as exolained in S.V. Naravanaooa t1967 (1) SCR 128L R.N. Naniundaooa t1972 (1) SCC 4O9I and B.N. Naoarajan f1979 (4) SCC 5071 e, of dulv o alified rtlata.rcr^nG in drrlv ernalian .rri ?,ht hrrra been made and the emoloyees have con inued to inlarrra iha aar r r.}c ar. af 1ri lr unal c The ouestion of reoularization of the services of such emolovees mav have to be considered on merits in the liqht of the orincioles settled bv this Court in the cases above referred to and an the lioht of thas iudoment. In that context. the Union of India, the f +aat lrarr.e an af err.darc af vta^ rti .trtcfe rrril 6a.i bu 1 rarl. measure, the servi s of such ir ularlv ao inted. n vears or more an dulv who have wor sanctioned posts but not u,nder cover of orders of the ln ca sanction ed Dosts that reouire to be fil! s where tem rarv emD ees or dailv UD, l5 SN. J WP No.l4416 of2020 are beinq now emploved. The Drocess must be set in motaon within six mo ths from this ate. L2. The iudoment of the ADex Court dated 20.12.2024, reoorted in 2O24 Law Suit(SC) 1209 in Jaoqo Anita and others v. Union of India and oth rs. and the levant I I N I 4 2 28 r hereunder: !'12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workersr" the appellants performed these essentiat tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensave periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary an nature, instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover. the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. The aim bv the resoonden 13. these were not reoular oosts lacks merat. as the nature of the work oerformed bv the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functionino of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, l6 SN. J WP No.14436 of2020 rryhich 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 i.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent 3xample from the private sector, illustrating the :onsequences 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 hiohliohts the iudiciarv's role in rectifvinq such misclassifications and ensurino that workers receive faar treatment. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" appointments. It cateooricallv held that emolovees in irreoular a pointments, who were enqaqed an dulv sanctioned oosts and had served continuous v for moje than ten vears should r reoularization as a one- be consid "irregular" '1 t7 SN, J wP No.l4416 of 2020 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 aoolication distorts the iudoment's soirit and puroose, effectivelv weaoonizino it aoainst emolovees who have rendered indisoensable 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, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to iollow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country' 28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: l8 SN. J WP No.14436 of2020 i. The termination orders dated

27.1O.20t8 are quashed; TlLe aDDellants shall be taken ai. on dutv forthwith- and their services reqularisei forthwith. However, the aopellants shall not be entitled to oecuniarv benefits/back waqes for the oeriod thev have not worked for but would be entitled to continuiW of services for the said oeriod and the same would be counted for their oost- retiral benefits."

13. Ihe Judoment of the A reDorted in 2O2S INSC 144 i "SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD", in oarticular, the relevant para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder: "15. ft is manifest that the Aooellant Workmen continuouslv rendered their services over several vears, sometimes soanninq more than a decade. Even if certain muster rotls were not oroduced in ful!, the Emolover's failure to furnish such records- rlaen +a di ian< 1 n adrrar.ea under well-establish inference labour iurisorudence. Indian labour law stronqlv disfavors peroetual daily-waoe or cqntractual enoaoements in circumstances where the work is oermanent in nature. Morallv and Ieoallv, workers who fulfil ta ela ea-rllarrrc l9 SN, J wP No.14436 of2020 :l At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices hs done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplifled in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several waYs: 20 SN, J WP No.14436 of2020 . Misuse of "Temoorarv" Labels: Emolovees . 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: 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. " 2t SN, J wP No.l4416 of2020

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status' While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record. L7. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that essential, oe nnia! d ties, th reteoated to oeroetual uncertainW. While concerns of munic oal budoet recruitment rutes merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Emolover of statutorv oblioations eou ble entitleme Indeed, bureaucratic timitations cannot trumo the leqitimate riohts of workmen who have served continuouslv in de facto reoular rotes for an extended oeriod' thev were enoa work rs cann comoli nce neqate 22 o SN. J WP No.14436 of2020

18. The imDuqned order of the Hioh Cou , to the extent thev confine the Appellant Workmen to future dailv-waoe enqaoement without continuity or meani nqful back waqes, 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, is declared illegal. All orders or 1947 , 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. (from the ate of Their entire Derio of absen termination until actual reinstatement) sha[ be counted for continuitv of service and all conseouential be efits, such as seniori elioib ilitv for o motions, 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. e ResDond ent Emolover is di initi te a fair and transDarent Drocess for w mo ths fro the ate of reansta ent, cons iderino t e fact that thev have De oerennial municioal duties akin to oermanent n I 23 SN. J WP No.14436 of2020 posts. In assessino reoularization, the educational or Emolover shall not imoo procedural criteria retroactivelv if such reqular emplovees in the D?st. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies foi iuch duties exist the Resoondent molover shall ora re reouire exoed ite al! necessarv administrative orocesses to ensure these lonotime emDlovees are not indefinitelv retained on dailv waoes contrarv to statutorv and equitable norms.

19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed." L4. The Aoex Court in a iudqment reoorted in (2O17'l 1 Supreme Court Cases 148. in State of Puniab and others its sub- aras vsJ oiit Sino and oth rs at Paras 54 an (11(2)(3\. of the said iudoment observed as under: "54 "The Ful! Bench of the High Court, while adiudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary emptoyees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay- scale,- merely for the reason, that the activities carried on by daity-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 iudgment are extracted hereunder:- "(1) A daity wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee aigainst the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon faimess and equality of opportunitY to all other eligible candidates, 24 SN, J wP No.l4416 of2020 shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2) But if daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees are not appointed against regular sanctioned posts and their services are availed continuously, with notional breaks, by the State Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient long period i.e. for 70 years, such daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale without any allowances on the assumption that work of perennial nature is available and having worked for such long period of time, an equitable right is created in such category of persons. Their claim for regularization, if any, may have to be considered separately in terms of legally permissible scheme. (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 1O years of continuous working, a daily wageL ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months."

15. The Judoment of the Aoex Court reoorted in 2O1O(9) c,^t ri, ah^raah. C}-+a r rrr:rfrlzr a.G MI - rrrl a*lr v ^f Kesari and others, in oartic ular, Daras 4 to 9 reads as underj

4. The decision in State of Karnataka v. lJmadevi was rendered ( reDorted in 20 H) SCC 1). In that case. a on 10.4.2 Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re- engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Afticle 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions 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 must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, i 25 SN, J wP No.14136 of 2020 nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Coutt further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : "53. One asoect needs to be clarified. There mav be cases where irreoular aPpointmenB (not illegal appoincmentsl as exptained in s.v. NaravanaDoa and referred to in oara 75 above, of dulv oualified oercons in dulv sanctioned vacant oosfs might have been made and the emDlovees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The ouestion of reoularization ol the services of such emolovees mav have to be considered on merits in the tioht of the orincioles seCtled bv this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the lioht of this iudoment. In that context- the Union of India, instrumenhtities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in dulv sanctioned oosts but not under cover of orderc of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that reoular recruitments arc undertaken to fitl those vacant sanctioned oosts that reouire to be filled uo. in cases where now emoloyed. The orocess must be set in motion within six months from this date. .... Govern ents and the Sta "5, It is evident from the above that there is atn exception to the generat principtes against ' regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or iore 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 r 26 SN' J WP No. t4436 of 2020 in service voluntarilY and the emPloYee and continued him icntinuousity for more than ten years' (i;) The appointment of such employee slou!d-^n?l be illegal' n?t made or eien if irregular' wnere lirc appoiitments 'are 'iosts or -*.h"11 the persons crtntinued against sancrtined ao(ointed do not possess ii'"i'JtL'io"a minimum qualifications' be illegat' B'ut where the the appointments will o" '"i{a"'ia-b c e rso n e m p I oy. a po""'J"i' ii L' i'n*i o"d'.qu a I i f i ca t i o n s a n d 'vras workine asainst turlii"i'i ioiis' out h1d--..:tn setected r,vithout undergoing tn" iriit 5i op"n competitive selection' :;uch appointments are considered to be irregular' , ent or in 'rum Co f 'ir workins services, f "ulii ii' i,

6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its after the Drooer perspective' This iii'ii- noi'aty mean 'that " "'i' 7" p u i i e n t'o r,e a cn i n st r u m e n t a t i tY 'i J{E,I ",i, should undertart u o'"-tiiJ'e'i'cis" and prepare a list of all - ';;;;,";;;v:;;;e o' ua i'oi"ipiivees who h1Y: 2'"n for more than ten v"uo iitioii'iii intervention'of courts and 'ii,o*irit"iii -irioi"a th;;-;; a process verification as to whether they are *orxi'g"aguiistlacant posts and possess the i;;-;;i;.";;.;i,;iiin ri'' inZ pi" and so' resutarize their 7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in u m a d ev i, ca ses or,t"'"i' a ii t v - i u g I e m p I ov ees were stitl pending o"io.ri 'couiti' Consequently' several departments and instrum;nialiiies did not commence the one' time regularization pl.oZ"ii' On the ?!!"' hand' some Government departmenti'ir' inlirumentatities undettook the one-time exercise "i'iaing- consideration either on n" g'"ina tha-t their cas-es,were pending in courts or due to sneei ivirsignt' In such circumstances' the employees who were entiiei io- oe considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision i' uiJJ""i'-will not lose their right to be seyeTl . -t-!!:?v"ut d -!oc!y.:: : / " " 27 SN, J WP No.l1416 of2020 considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider ail daily' wage,/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of coitinuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of coutts. ar tribunals. If any employer had held the one'time exercise in terms of para 53 of tJmadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of lJmadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when att the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of lJmadevi, are so considered. Uma hi. vi is two- fold. First .s to ensu hoc/ sual for lono oe ds and measune, g. 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 28 SN, J WP No.14436 of2020 regularization within six months of the decision in tJmadevi or i:hereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with ,taw. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now rndertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casuat/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila panchayat and if Eo whether such employees (including the respondents) tulfitt the requirements mentioned in para 53 of tJmadevi, If they futfi them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 7 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their seruices need not be regutarised. If the emptoyees who have completed ten years service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.

16. In the Jiudoment of the Apex Court in NihaI Sinqh and others v. State of puniab reoorted in (2013) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paad by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees. of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary 29 SN, J WP No.14436 of2020 cadre or sanctaoning of controt vested wath the State. It held that the creation of a a cadre is a matter the State, but if the exctusavely within the authority of State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractua! retationship, its action is arbitrary. It also refused to 30 SN, J WP No.l4416 of2020 bv the State. It was held that the iudqment in Umadevi cannot become a licence for exoloitation bv the State and its instrumentalitaes and neither the Government of Puniab nor those oublic sector Banks can continue such a oractice inconsistent with their oblioation to function in accordance with the Constitution. L7. The Judqment of the Apex Court reoorted in 2015 SCC Online SC 1797 between E.Sdnivalusu a[d lthers v Nellore Municioal eorDorataon Rep.bv its Commissioner, Neltore Dastrict, Andhra Pradesh and others, in oarticular oaras 7 and 8 reads as under: (7) We find it difficult to acceDt e reasonine adooted bv the llioh Court. The right of the appellants to seek regularization !'lows from the G.O. No.272 dated 22.4.7994. The appellant ltave been in service of the first respondent not only prior to the ssuance of the said G.O. but even subseeuent to the issue of !;.O. till todav. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years t'tithout regularising the sen/ice of the appellants and continued lo extract work from the appellants,

8. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' seruices be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh A Ors. 2009 (8) scc 480. 3l SN, J WP No.l,1436 of 2020

18. In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar reDorted (2015'1 8 SCC 255, the Suoreme Court held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regutarisation of such appointment, which are irregutar but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are iregular but not illegal, and to e sure secur tv of emolovment of those oersons who had served the State Govern ment and their instrumentali es for more an ten vears" This In that c se, emolov ee was wor ino for 29 vears. rlier vi DOTOVeS decision M.L.Kesari extracted above.

19. In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasad reoorted in (20141 7 SCC 223, similar view was taken bv the Suoreme Court and it was held as follows : "47.... fn view the cateo 'al of fact inhrtered with bv this Court." 32 SN, J wP No.14436 of2020

20. The Judgment of this Court dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.276O2 ot 2019 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2O23 dated

10.1O,,2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2024 in SLP No.32847 ot ZOZ4. 2L. Ihe Judoment of the A Dassed in Civil AoDea! N0.8558 of 2O18 reoorted n 2025 scc o "Dharam S nqh and Ot ers v. NLIN sc 173s StaEllof U.P. and Another", in oarticular, the relevant oara NoS..,L3, 17. 18. 19 and 2O are extracted hereunder: "13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Cr>mmission's further contention that the appellants are not "full-time" employees but continue only by virtue oF interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of' engagement and the pendency of the challeng- to the State's refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals.

1.7. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the 33 SN, J wP No.14436 of2020 backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency ceftainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.

18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running. "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 regularisations, we issue the following directions: 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 Commission 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 equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any 34 SN. J wP No.14436 of2020 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 24.04.2002 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 default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 60lo per annum from the date oF default until payment. iii. Retired aooellants: Anv aooellant who has alreadv retired shall be oranted reoularization with effect from 24.04.2OO2 until the date of suoerannuation for oav fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalc lation of oension, oratuitv and other rminal dues. he revised nsion and te minal dues shall be oaid within three months of this Judoment. iv. Deceased aooellants: In the case of Ao llant No. oaid the arrears under w month s of this Judqment. lause (ii) uo to the d v. Compliance affidavit: The principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar pradesh, oithe 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 ludgment. 35 SN, J WP No-14436 of2020

20. W" 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 Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance' As a 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 oi supe.numerary 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 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia.

22. The Judome tofth Man ir Trust V State of Maharas tra and Others reD rted Aoex ourt in Hari Kri hna R 2020 suDreme urt 396 and in articular oara Nos.1 OO and 10 held as fo lows: "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 ol the Constitution of India, not only have the powe r to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, 36 SN, J WP No.l4416 0f2020 _censidcratlon. I r n I01. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a writ of rnandamus and give directions to compel performance in en appropriate and lawful mannei of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority.,, Thi Court ooane in the Dresen case. n h x t Det oner's servrcesint ance to law. t e cad r of Sweeoer

23. Thi Court ooines that i rec rd cl rlv in icatino the fact as orne on reco view of the aterialon a h r a n I D 2 r e r 20 2 n 1 1 d h d D P s n H a P H D' P cer, Adit bad and the rema rks dated 23.07.1997 37 SN, J WP No. I ,1436 of 2020 forwa ed bv the District Panchavat Officer, Ad ilabad indicatino the na es of the itioners a sl.Nos. 9 and 12 pertainino to pendino cases for reoutarization and in view of the observation of the Aoex Court in various iudoments (referred to and extracted abovel- thas Court oD'nes that the oetitioners are entitled for consideration of oetitioners case bv the resDondents herein for reoularization of withina Servl sina to la ioner's reasonable oeriod.

24. Learned Ass stant Governme t Pleader does not disoute the said submissions made bv the learned pounsel h I e o orders to be oassed on the orooosals forwarded in favour of the oetitioners.

25. Takinq in a) cons derati n:- The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behatf of the petationers and learned 38 SN, J WP No.14436 of2020 Assistant Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) The contents of the letter.dated 06.O1.2017 (referred to and extracted above), d) The contents of the letter dated 19.09.2019 (referred to and extracted above), e) The submissions dated 23.07.1997 forwarded by the District Panchayat Officer, Aditabad indicating the names of the petitioners at Sl.Nos. 9 and 12 pertaanang to pending cases for regularization. f) The letter dated O3.O8.2019 from District Panchayat Officer, Adilabad addressed to Commissioner of Panchayat Rai and Rurat Employment, Telangana State, Hyderabad indacates that the District Panchayat Officer, Adilabad had submitted the information to the Commissioner of Panchayat Rai & Rural Development pertaining to regularization of daily wages and temporary employees under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated

23.07.L997 i9 SN, J WP No.14436 of2020 S) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and agaan enlisted below: (.) (2020) 1 ScC (L&S) (ai) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iaa) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 2O1O(9) SCC 247 (vii) (2O13) 14scc 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC t797 (ix) (2O1s) 8 SCc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O SuPreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2o06) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O25 SCC ONLINE SC 1735 The Writ Petition is allowed, since it is the specific cabe of the petitioners that the petitioners had been discharging their duties as Karobar from O8.12.1982 and

01.08.1983 respectively and have been rendering the servaces as on date, the petitioners are directed to submit a detailed representataon to the respondents herein putting-forth the grievance of the petitioners as put-forth an the present Writ Petitaon seekang to consider and regularize the services rendered by the petationers on par with the 5th respondent whose services were regularized l I I I I , ( \ \ \ 40 <-rt, 1 SN, J WP No.14436 of2020 in terms of the G.O.Ms.No. 143, Panchayatraj & Rural Development (Pts.V) Department dated 29.12.2016 with all consequential monetary benefits, including senaority with arrears of pay on par with 5th respondent within a period of one (O1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and upon the respondents receivang the same, the respondents are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders withan four (4) weeks thereafter in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, duly takang into consideration the observations and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and duly communicate the decision to the petationer. However, there shall be no order as to costs. l"liscellaneous petitions, if any, Petition, shall stand closed. pgfils, in this Writ ,TTRUE COPYX Sd/-B.REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR6SECTION OFFICER To One Fair Copy to the Hon,bte MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA (For Her Ladyships Kind perusal) 1' The Principar secretary, .panchayathraj Department, Terangana secretariat, ^ Stateol Telangana at Fiyderabad. 2. The Ccmmissioner of Fanchayathraj, Govt. of Telangana, Himayathnagar, Hvderalrad. # a { ) )

3. The District Panchayath Officer, Adilabad, Telangana State. 4. The Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Telangana Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

5. 11 LR Copies 6. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairc, New Delhi.

7. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad

8. Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. TOUTJ

9. Two CCs to GP FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

10.One CC to SRI CH.GANESH, Advocate [OPUC] 11..Two CD Copies SA/PMK a I .l C.C. TODAY - -r j :!- )_. o C) N6 \qS * * !. HIGH COURT \ t DATED: 3010712025 ORDER. WP.No.14436 of 2020 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. @ ugws 4 0o rslwlzb