1. Mukkiri Rajanna v. Petition l'A'No 02 "'

Order

Heard Sri V' lagapathi' learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners' learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I' appearing on behalf of the respondent No'1' and Sri Veda Vikas Mudirai Vuppari' learned Standing Counsel for PJTAU' appearing on behalf of resPondent Nos'2 and 3' 2. The petitioners filed the writ petition seeking the following relief: 'O"t'u''nn ". to issue Writ' Order or direction' more Particularly on Mandamus' calling for the records in the nature "'*l.'t "' relatinq to tne cout Lefter No 296 al Agr\l 'llU AU 2Ol9 ' dated 18'03'2020 of ln respondent and after perusing the same' set aside the impugned Govt' Letter dated 18'03 2020 and as well as the consequential Memo No'l?71 Lab/ o'i zou dated 24o3'2o2o of 2"d them as arbitrary' illegal' respondent' o' contrarv t" tn" o]o"Io aled 26'oq'2o19 in w P No'9130 of 2019 reaO *itn'ft" O'0"' dated 20'11'2019 in Review 20tn in w P'No'9130 of 2019 and Petition l'A'No 02 "' contrary to ra* lna consequently direct the respondents to forthwith r"n''unt" the services of the petitioners from (10) years the dates tne service' witnout insisting completion of (5) years and with all other minimum '"*tt" "petition"rs :ompleted "'"'"" ut-on 2 SN- .I wt, 15107 2020 consequential benefits, monetary pass.. ". or otherwis l, and to

3. The case of the petitioners in brief as pe r the averments made by the petitioners in the affidavit filed by i e petitioners in support of the present writ petition is that th€, petitioners had been working as time scale workers in :l r respondent,s University. On an earlier occasion petitioners fi r d W.p.No.9130 of 2079 for regularization of petitioners service:; for sanction of pension and other pensionary benefits. This Co I ,t passed order dated 26.04.2019 directing the respondent Nos : and 3 to send proposals to 1tt respondent for the regularizatio-r of the services of the petitioners. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 firec Review petition vide I.A.No.2 of 20t9 against the order dated 26. )4.2OLg passed in W.P.No.9130 of 2019 and the said Revie,/ petition was dismissed vide order dated 20.11.2019. The p:titioners have also filed Contempt Case No.437 of 20it against the respondents herein. SubsequenUy, the 2nd dated 28.02.2020 sent proposals to respor Jent vide letter r:;pondent 1rt misleading information and the 1tt respondent ,,n the basis of misleading information issued letter dated 18,ir3.2020 to 2"d respondent stating that the petitioners have not completed J SN, J wP 15407 2020 minimum required service of five years as on 25.11.1993. Hence, the petitioners are not eligible for regularization of their services. In pursuance to the Govt. Letter dated 18.03.2020, the 2nd respondent issued impugned Memo dated 24.03.2020 to the petitioners informing that the petitioners are not eligible for regularization of their services due to non-fulfilling of the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. The petitioners further submit that the impugned letter dated

18.03.2020 had been issued by the 1't respondent mechanically and without application of mind rejecting the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services. Aggrieved thereby the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

4. PERU ED THE RECO RD. (A) The relevant oortion of the order dated

26.O4.20t9 oassed in W.P. No.913O of 2019 in oarticu lar para Nos .4to7 are extra ted hereu nde r: "4. The petitioners contend that they are all appointed as Class-IV employees during 1989 and they were paid their salaries initially on daily wage basis. Subsequently, minimum time scale of pay was extended to them with DA and HRA' They contend that though they are working for more than three 4 SN. J \\'t, 15J07 2020

decades, the respondents are not consi(llring their cases for regularization of services. Tlt:y further contend that the 3..d respondent has submitted proposals to 2nd respondent for regularizali tn of their services but the 2nd respondent is not fonr arding the same to the 1st respondent. Therefore, tl- r y contend that they deserve reg ularization of services n terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court I 3ported in the State of Karnataka and ors vs.Umac evi. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners cc.rtend that considering the contention of the per.i ioners, a direction may be issued to the respondents o consider the cases of the petitioners for regularizall )n of their services forthwith notionally from the datel; petitioners have completed ten years of service, for .l e purpose of counting qualifying service of the pel i ioners for sanction of pension and other pensionary b( nefits. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for respon Jent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the cases of the petiti,) rers would be examined and necessary proposals wc L ld be sent to the 1'r respondent, if the petitioners ar( in service for 30 years, within a period of two weeks and if the proposals are submitted by the 2nd responr ,ent to the 1't respondent within a period of two wee < ;, then the 1't respondent shall consider and pass , ppropriate orders in accordance with law in another e ght weeks thereafter. I

7. Accordinolv. the writ Petition is r sposed of resoond ent Nos,2 and 3 to se nd d irecti no st res onden wl h rd to r e reo u la rization of services of the etitio n rs within a oeriod of two weeks anr| the 1tt resDondent, on rece Dtof uch oroor 1 ;a ls, sha ll consider the same and oass aooroorLj teo ders s T ) c o n eekst er w hl w w hi fter. No costs. " a a riod of h SN, J wt, 15407 2020 (B). Th r le n ortion of th a

20.Ll .2o19 in Review I.A.No.2 of2o19 in W.P .No. 9130 of r ts xtr c n h r L "This Review petition is fiied seeking revrew of the orders passed by this Court on 26.O4.2}tg in W.p.No.9130 of 2OL9 on the ground that the writ petitioners are not working against the sanctioned vacant posts and that writ petitioners have not fulfilled the conditions set out in G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.7gg4 and contend that appropriate orders be passed in accordance with law. This Court, having regard to the said submissions of review petitioners is of the considered view that since the writ petitioners were discharging their duties for the Iast 3 decades, the contention of the review petitioners that they have not fulfilled the condition of completion of minrmum 5 years of service as on 2S.11.1993 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, dt.Z2.O4.tgg4 cannot be accepted and with regard to other contention that writ petitioners are not working against the sanctioned vacant posts is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that working of the writ petitioners for more than 3 decades itself discloses that they have worked against the permanent posts. This Court, vide order dated 26.O4.2019 disposed of W.P.No.9130 of 2OI9 directing the respondents 2 and 3 to send proposals to the 1'l respondent with regard to regularization of the services of the petitioners and upon 6 SN. J wP 15407 2020 such proposals being received by the 1't resporr( ent, the lst respondent was directed to consider the sarl : and pass appropriate orders. Though the review peti'i)ners were directed to send the proposals oF the writ pel i roners who have put in more than 3 decades of servicrl to i:he 1't respondent, the review petitioners without fLI lishing the said proposals to the 1't respondent filed lre present review petition. Further, a perusal of the orde - passed in W.P.No.9130 of 2Ol9 would disclose that th€ said order was passed at the admission stage with the co1;ent of both the parties. Therefore, the contention of :he review petitioners that the Writ Petition was dispos€ I of at the admission stage without giving any opportunity to them, is totally in correct. In view oF the above, there are no grou't is to review the order passeci by this Court in W.P.No.9._ iO of 2019, dated 26.04.2019. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismis;ed." (c) The order imouqned of the 2"d r,g tDondent vide Memo No .L77 /Labl AL/2OL9. dated 24.03.2 02O issued to the oetitioners is extracted h e reu nder: "PROFESSOR ]AYASHANKAR TELANGANA STATE AGRIC L L -URIST UNIVERSITY ADIYN. OFFICE: RAJENDRANAGAR: HYDEF qBAD-30 mo No. 177 1 2019 Sub-PITSAU-RARS, Jagtial-w.p.No.9130 of 2 )19 filed by Sri Mukkiri Rajanna & 6 others, casual labour (M--: ,) RARS, Jagtial - WP disposed of - Proposals sent for egularization to Government as per the directicns of the Jon,ble Court - Proposal Negatived - Communicated - Regardi .g. elatee_ 14.03.2020. 1 SN. J \\,P l5.lo7 2020 Ref:- 1.

4. order dated. 26.04.2079 of the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana in W.P.No.9130/2019 respectively. Lr. No. 2964lA9 ri.IlI I A7 / 20t9, dated 25. 05. 20 19 of the APC & Principal Secretary to Government, Government ofTelngana, Agrl. & Coop. Department, Hyderabad. University lr.No.l7 7 / Lab/A1IRARS, lagitia l/2020, dated 2A.2.2O2O addressed to the APC & Secretariat, Hyderabad. 1r.No.2964149rl.lII/Al/2O19, dt : 18.03.2020 of the APC & Secretary to Government, Agril. & Cooperation Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. *** The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.212 Finance & Planning (F.W.P.C.III) department datedi 22-4-1994 wherein it was ordered to regularize the services of the persons appointed on daily wages or consolidated pay and who have worked continuously for a minimum period of 5 years and are being continued as on 25-11-1993 subject to fulfillment of conditions therein. Later, the Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.231, Fin. & Planning (FWPC-III) Department, dated: 16-10-1998 stating that the services of those persons who are continuing on rolls as on 25-11-1993 and having completed a continuous minlmum period of 5 years of services on or before 25-1I-1993 only shall be regularized in the substantive vacancies that arose after 25- 5-1995. The University has adopted the said G.Os and has been regularizing the services of the eligible casual labour rn the substantive vacancies in each Unit as and when the vacancies arose duly following the Seniority, Rule of Reservation after approval by the Government. Seven (7) casual labour viz., Sri.Mukkiri Rajanna and 6 others who are working as casual labour (MTS) at RARS, lagtial nave filed W.P.No.9130 of 2O19, praying the Court to issue a Writ, Order or directlon, more particularly one in the nature oF Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of 2'd Respondent, in not considering the Petitioners for regularization of their services, as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and contrary to law and consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith regularize services of petitioners, notionally from the dates Petitioners have completed (10) years service, for the purpose of countlng their qualitying service for sanction of Penslon and other Pensionary benefits, and with all other consequential benefits, monetary otherwise. 8 disposed of the above Wp as follows: SN, J \\'P 15407 2020 The Hon'ble High Court vide orders d,r ed: 26.04.2019 Accordingly, the Writ petition is dispo ed of directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to send proposals to 1t respondent with regard to the regularization of services of the I e tioners within a period of two weeks and the 7't respondent, t t receipt of such proposals, shall consider the same and pass at oropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period )f eight weeks thereafter, No costs. Out of total 41 casual labour who are or rolls working at Regional Agricultural Research Station, lagtial, )7 casual labour have filed Writ petition No. 9130/2019. In c ledience of the above orders of the Hon,ble High Court the rrop65315 66 g6" petitioners in the above Wp were sent to th(, Government for regularization with all details of the petitior 3rs as per the directions of the Hon'ble Hjgh Court for is:;r e of necessary o rders. EG f ( s ual I lth cited. has rmed the U niversitv that on oeru sal f the oroposal submitted b the Reqistrar, PJTSAU it wa o erved that n rs in WP No. h o 913 ol20t9 have not comoleted mrn 1Um requ ired n2 f rrt n the date of ,re ribed s G.O.!ls.No,2 12 Fin.& Pino .(FW.PC .III ) - Deot., dated e Petitioners [n WP No.14 709 t 2019 viz., Sri M ukkiri Raia !na&6others are not eliq ible for req ula rization of heir I ervices due to n 5 m n

1.1 ur. .o4. 94 h u a a a a I j( h iti n -fulfi .M o,2L da d:2 2.O4.1994 Fi P l:ri w.F( .III) D Dt., In view of the above, Sri Mukkiri Rajarr a and 6 others, petitioners in Wp No. 9t3O/20L9 are hereby r formed that the Government has negatived the proposal of ttr ir regularization as they have not fulfilled the conditions in G.Cr. i4s.No.212 Fin.& PiJr9. (FW.PC.III) Dept., dated: 22.04.1994 Co:. es of references J " and 4'' ctted are herewith endorsed. S.SUDHt_:R KUMAR RE(i STRAR To Sri Mukkiri lagtial. Th J agtia l. Cc: the Associate Director of Research, RARS, -. gtial Rajanna & 6 oth ers, rough the Associate casual laborrr s (MTS), Director of t esea rch, RARS, RARS, //F.B.o// 9 SN. J wP 15407 2020 (D) The learned Stan dino Counsel aooearino for on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 olacinq reliance on the averments ma de in the unter affidavit in oarticular Pa rao ra Dh No.15 extracted hereunder, contended that petitioners are not entitled for orant of anv relief. m nt as Casual Labour as "15. In reply to para 10, I submit that the oetitioners herein have not completed (5) years of service as sn 25-11- 1993 f ( m h rescn e in G.O.Ms.No.212 dl:22.04.1994 and the same fact has been brought to the notice of the Government and sought concurrence for regularization of the petitioners based on the Order of the Hon'ble High Court as the concurrence of the Government is mandatory for regularization of the Casual Labour into vacant sanctioned post. The Government has ntv rsit Dertain inq to the reqularization of the petitignels hclqin tlicle III/A7/20t9. dt: 18.03.20 20 statina that Lr.no.2964/ Aori. the casual labour who are Detitio ners in W.P No.9130/2019 are not eliqible for re ulari zation as thev have not comDleted minimum requi red service of 5 vears as on 2 5.11.1993 from r as rescribe h date of a tn h P.C.III) Deoartment. G. O. Ms. No dated: 22.Q4.1994." 21,2. Fin. & Plno. (F.W. osal of the 2nd res o ointment as o DISCUSSION AND CON LUSIO N

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the request of the petitioners for regularization oF the petitioners services with all other consequential benefits from the date of completion of ten (10) years oF service of the petitioners without insisting completion of five (5) years of l0 SN. J wP t5407 2020 minimum service as on 25.11.1993 had been r: ected vide Lr. No. 2964/Agrl.Iil(Al)/20L9 by the 1't res6 ondent dated

18.03.2020 and the consequential memo dai :d 24.03.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent on the ground that petitioners did not have five years of minimum service as on i 5.11.1993 and intimating the same to the petitioners is illegal, ir bitrary without application of mind, in a mechanical manner, con.rary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, in .he order dated 1,9.09.2077 passed in Writ Petition No.272t7 of it 17.

6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing rt I behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioners service , had not been regularized in view of the fact that the G( vernment had negatived the proposals of University for regul rrization of the petitioners herein vide proceedings dated 18.( 3.2OZO stating that the petitioners were casual labour, as su:r they are not eligible for regularization since they have rot completed minimum required service of 5 years as on 25.11 .1993 from the date of appointment as casual labour as prescribed in G.O.Ns.No.212, Fin. & ptng. (FW pC.III) Dept., dated

22.04.7994, and therefore the petitioners are nct entiiled for the relief as prayed for in the present petition. II S^-, J wP 15407 2020 7. A bare perusal of the order, dated 26.O4.2OL9 passed in Writ Petition No.913O of 2O19 in favour of the petitioners herein clearly indicates that the said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 thereunder to send the proposals to the 1't respondent with regard to the regularization of services of the petitioners herein within a period of two (O2) weeks and the 1't respondent upon receipt of such proposals is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight (O8) weeks thereafter.

8. The bare perusal of record further indicates that the respondents herein had filed Review I.A.No.2 of 2O19 in Writ Petition No.913O of 2019 mainly on the following g rou nds. (i) Firstly, that the Writ petitioners in W.P. No.913O of 2O19 are not working against the sanctioned vacant posts and (ii) Secondly that the Writ petitioners in W.P No.913O of 2O19 had not fulfilled the conditions set out in G.O.Ms.No.21 2, dated 22.O4.L994. 12 ThisCour EV ew f. in its Judo ment da e d20 .1 o ot2 1 inW.P. N SN. J wP_15407 2020 .201 9 pa ssed 13t) of 201 9 ealt wtth h bo e two s resD ondents herein n s rV dth t h r ar r e ct tc n n I a ised bv the neo tived t es; ne and Verv I u nds !o revlew he o r t s ed nW. .No. 91 Oof 2 d e ) 26. 4 o19

9. The A exC urtint he IUdq me nt re ort( lin (2 o2o)1 fU arP ra e h a nd s c L in Pr m si hv s oth rs a D ra 36 h ld as unde r: "36. There are some of th e employees who ha l not been regularized in spite of hav tng rendered the servi es for 30- 40 or more years where as they have been su p,l ann uated. As they have worked in the work- charged esta rlishment, not against an v pa rticular project, their servicr: ought to have been reg ularized under the G overnment it stru ctions and even as per the decision of this Court r State of Karnataka vers us Umadevi (3 )11 This Court r the saii decision has la id down that rn case services lave been rendered for m ore than ten years without the cc zer of the Cou rt's orde r, as one-time measure, the se -vices reg ularized of such employees In the facts o' the case those employee s who have worked for ten yea r or mo should have been regularized. It wo uld not be troper to regulate them for consideration of .egularizatiorr as oth e rs have been reg ularized, we direct that their se v ices be treated as a r egular one it is made lear thai they shall not e entitled to clai ming any dues ol lifferen ce b rn wages had they been con tinued in servrc< regula rlY before attaining the age of su perannuation. Thr,, shall be entitled to receive the pensio nas if they har.1 retired e _ services f h l entered e Inted as However. e t e t h n a h r r n s n," l3 SN, J wP r 5407 2020 10. The Aoex Cou rt in the case of Dharwad District PWD Literate Dailv Waqe Emolovees Association Vs. State of Karnataka reo rted in 1990(2) SCC Paoe 39 6 laid orinciole that the State should not keeD a Derson in temoorarv or ad hoc service for lonq Deriod and have to treat such Dersons as reqular one.

11. Para No.53 of the of the udqment of the Aoex Court I in the State of Karnataka and others Vs, Umadevi, dated

10.O4.2006 reoorted in (2 06) 4 SCC 1 is extracted hereu nder: - 1 n a 72 R12 .N. N n "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There mav be cases where irreqular aopointments (not illeqal aDoointments) as explained in S.V. NaravanapDa 1 SCC 4O9l and B.N. Naqaraian 1L979 (41 SqC 5O7'l and referred to in Dara 15 above. of dulv oualified narsons in dul sanctioned vaca It t nncfc rr ierlrt hrrra been made and the emolovees have contin ued to work for ten vears or more but without thc intervention of orders of hecourts or of trib U nals. The ouestaon of reoularization of he services of such emolovees mav have to be considered on merits in the Iiqht of the orinciples ettled bv this Court in the nd in the Un tatft a ove referre ud ment. In that co State Governments and their inst rumentalities should take steos to reoularize as a one-time measure, the servtces of such irreoularlv aooointed, who hav worked for ten vea rs or more in du lv ft ha ca natinn ?raic+c but not u nder v roforA t e I l4 SN,.I \\'P ti407 2020 cou rts orof lar r e a nt an ribunals and shou ld furt re un ertak c se w er re EI o on wi now e ln tx o ts h e T m e t r ensu re a ll th s o obe filled up srrda ilv waqers ro ess must be set sf m hi da !2. The ud ment of the ADex Cou rt date d 2 L2.20 24 DOrted tn 20 24 Law s t sc L209 in JiI I o An ) ita and othersv Union of fndi a and ot er the re pa raqraD h Nos. 1 2, L3, 24, 26. 27and 2A are extra h re nd er: an l " 1_2.. Des.pate being labelted as ,,pa I t_time 1v_o_rt<91s," . the appelants pe.io.-;;' i;;r. essential tasks on a daily .nJ io.,r,l *"r, basis over extensive periods, ,r"gi;; ';;rn over a decade to nearty two'aecuiei] il'"i. :lg_1g.-.Tt was not sporadic o. t.rri,o.".y 1 T"ty.S, instead, it was recurrent, r€9ular, and akin to the responsibititie. 'tiiiJilv associated with sanctioned posts. Uo1-,:oier, the respondents did not engage .ny o-tt e. personnet for these tastl -auiiril --if,u appellants tenure, underscoring' ifr" indispensable nature of their work. -

13. h s e n t ell n 1 it. as 1r the nn al fu d men tal to o h The rec _r rring nature of these duties necessi tates classification as regular posts rrrespective c f how their i n itia I engagements we re labelled. It i; also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing o, these t5 SN. J wP 15407 2020 same tasks to private agencies after the appellants'termination demonstrates the in he re nt 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 judgement of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation 197 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent example from the private sectorf 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 hiqhliohts the iudiciary's role in rectafyinq such m isclassifications and ensurin o that workers receive fair 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 em olovees in "irregular" 16 S\". J \\rP t5,107 20?0 i!'reoular aooointments, who were enoa.! ted in dulv sanctioned posts and had 5:rved nuouslv for more than ten vears s lould be considered for reoularization as ;r one- ttme meas ure. However, the laudable int tnt of the judgment is being subverted when inst t:tions rely on its dicta to ind iscriminately rejr:, t the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but mere r lack adherence to procedural formalities. Gover lment departments often cite the judgment in Uftr r Devi (supra) to argue that no vested rir; rt to regularization exists for temporary empi ryees, judgment's < xplicit overlooking the acknowledgment of cases where regularizir ion is a ppropriate. nd i;torts g :ivelv I have - over weaponizinq it aoainst emplovees wh( rendered indispensable services decades. !i

27. In light oF these considerations, 1 our opinion, it is imperative for gove- tment departments to lead by example in provid r g fair and stable employment. Engaging worker; on a temporary basis for extended periods, esl) tcially when their roles are integral to the organi;:; tion,s functioning, not only contravenes interrt tional labour standards but also exposes the orgar iuation to legal challenges and undermines eml: oyee morale, By ensuring fair employ ment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigl, rtion, promote job security, and uphol<l the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach : ligns with international standards and se tJ a positive precedent for the private sect f,r to follow, thereby contrabuting to the <r reralt betterment of labour practices in the cor ntry. l7 SN, J \\,P t 5407 2020 2A. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 .70.20 18 are quashed ; The aooellants shall be taken It. on dutv forthwith and their services requla ised forthwith. However, the aDoellants shall not be entitled Decu n ta rv benefits/back waoes for the oeriod h be entitled to con nuitv of services t he sam heir Dost- would be counted for t retiral benefits. " have no w t e r n e

13. The Judoment oft he ADex Court dated 31.01.2025 reported n 2025 INSC 144 in *SHRIPAL AND A OTHER V. NAGAR N GAM, GHAZIABAD" in oarticular, th releva nt Dara Nos.1 5 to 19 are extra cted her u nder: "15. tt is manifest that the ADoellant Workmen contin uouslv rendered their services over several vears, sometimes soanni o more than a decade. I we olover's failure to furnish such records- the E A lrea+ianc r duc -.! r-+^' n if c !+- i - ,^ / so- r lln w c all il- h t iurispru dence. Indian labour law stronqlv di avors oerpe al dailv-waq e or contractual enoaqem ents in h w leoal lv, d reouirements nc of nature Mora!!v a onqoinq municioal tn h f Ulfit vear after orkers wh r n I8 Sf,-,.1 wP_ 15407 2020 aoreement. At this juncture, it would be apr-opriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite ' emporary" employment practices as done by a recent jL ( gement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in t I r following paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary I nployment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that advers ( ly affects workers' rights and job security. In t re private sector, the rise of the gig economy he s led to an increase in precarious employment ar-; ngements, often characterized by lack of benefits, ( b security, and fair treatment. Such practices I ave been criticized for exploiting workers and I rdermining labour standards. Government institutior s entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness ind justice, bear an even greater responsibility to tvoid such exploitative employment practices. V/ ren public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrime rtal trends observed in the gig economy but i);o sets a concerning precedent that can erode publi - trust in governmental operations. 25. It is a disconcerting reality thal temporary employees, particularly in government tstitutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploit;.ion. While the foundational purpose oF temporai' contracts may have been to address short-term , r seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a nechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evad,r long-term obligations owed to employees. The:r, practices ma n ifest in several ways: . M isus of "Temoorarv" La bels: ..1 :mplovees e noaoed for work that is essentia l, _ recurrino, and inteoral to the functionino of an_ nstitution are often labelled as "contra ual," even when their rt! es mirror of the miscl assification deorives worker d io n itv. securitv, and ben ef its tl" t reoular ! emolove s are entitled to. desoite erform in q I iden tica I tasks. "temD ra rv" 0 t9 SN, J wP r5407 2020 . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are trequently 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 equa lly sig n ifica nt. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness. retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance oF their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record. 17. In light of these discontinuation of the considerations, the Appellant Workmen Employer's stands in 20 SN. ] \\'P 15.107 2020 he we el violation of the most basic labour law principie : . Once it is established that their services were termin.l :d without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.' Industrial !qaqed in Disputes Act, 7947, and that essential, oerennial duties, these worker:i cannot be releoated o oeroetual uncertain tv. While q rncerns of municioal budoet a d comoliance with r, rcruitment !s do not nsid ration a bsolve t e Emolover of statutorv obl !l rations or neoate eouitable entatl em ents Indeed. b reaucratic r rumD the leoitimat() riqhts qf limitations cannot workmen who have served continuouslv i r de facto reoular roles for an extended oeriod u the Hioh Cr q rrt. to the er of 18. The imouoned ord extent thev confine the Aooellant Workm,: r to future dailv-waqe engaoement without corl inuitv or meaninqful back waqes, is herebv set asic e with the followinq directions i. The discontinuation of the Appellant services. eFfected without compliance r 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Indusl r Act, 1947 , is declared illegal. AI communications term inating their :;, quashed. In consequence, the Appellz r shall be treated as continuing in serri date of their termination, for all purpo:;, seniority and continuity in service. Wo rkme n's /ith Section a I Disputes orders or rvices are t Workmen e from the s, including II. The Respondent Employer shall - ,instate the Appellant Workmen in their respecti'/' posts (or posts akin to the duties they previousll performed) within four weeks from the date of tlr , judgment. Their entire period of absence (fronr the date of rt) shall be termination until actual reinstatemrl counted for continuiW of servi ( 3 and all riority and conseouential be efits, such as s elioibilitv for Dromotions. if anv III. Considering the length of service, t re Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o of tl- < back wages from the date of their discontinuatio until their actual reinstatement. The Respond(:r t Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within t rree months from the date of their reinstatement. 2t sN. l wP I i407 2020 the date of reinsta ment. du IV. The ResDondent Emolover is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for reoularizing the Appellant Workmen within six months fro t considerino the fact tha thev have oerformed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent reqularizatio n, the Dosts. Emolover shall not imoose educational or r reouirements were never aoolied to the Aooellant Workmen or to similarlv situated In assessinq ctivel r m lo e Tot that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are reour red. the Resoondent Em olover shall expedite all necessarv administrative Drocesses to ensure these lonqtime emDlovees are not indefinitelv retai ned on dailv waoes contrarv to statutorv and eouitable 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 A x Court in a iudoment r oorted in ( 2o17) 1 Suoreme Court Cases 148 , in State of Puniab and others vs Jaoiit Sinoh a d others at Paras 54 nd its sub- Da ras 1 2 of the s m "54 "The Futt Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary eimptoyees 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 hereunder:' 22 SN. J \\,P 1i407 2020 "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contr tctual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, i, appointed after undergoing a selection process based -t ton fairness and equality of opportunity to all other e'i tible candtdates, shall be entrtled to minimum of the regt I tr pay scale from the date of engagement. (2) But if daily wagers, ad hoc or cont-, ctual appointees are not appointed against regular san: ioned posts and their services are availed continuou:;t ,, with notional breaks, by the State Government or it; instru menta lities for a sufficient long period i.e. for 70 'ears, such daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointee shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay sc,,le without any allowances on the assumption that w trk of perennial nature is available and having worked f<tt such long period of time, an equitable right is created irt such category of persons. Their claim for regularization, r any, may have to be considered separately in terms of l,gally permissibte scheme. (3) In the event, a claim is made for nt limum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daity wager/ ad hoc or contractual employee s tall be entitted to arrears for a period of three years and tv o months."

15. The iudoment of the Aoex Court reDor ed in 201 9) SCC 247 between: State of Karnataka r d oth r v M .L.Kesari and othe in oarticu la r Da ras ! to 9 reads as u nd er: e The decision in State of Karnataka v. Uma 4. 10.4.2006 (reDorted in 2006 G) SCC 1) Constitution Bench of thi's Court held that at without following the due process or the appointment did not confer any right on tlt, courts cannot direct their absorption, regL engagement nor make their service perman€ Court in exercise of jurisdiction under A- Constitution should not ordinarily issue directrc regularization, or permanent continuance unle! twa rendered In that cas e, a )ointments made 'ules relating to appointees and tarization or re- 1t, and the High icle 226 of the ts for absorption, s the recruitment 23 SN, J ufP r5407 2020 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, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further held that a temporaryt contractualt 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 asDect needs to e clarified. There mav be cases where irreoular aDDO intmen ts (not illeaal aDDointments ) as exolained in S.V. Nar,a NADDA 7 67 SCC 4ogl and B.N. Nasaraian [7979 G) SCC 5O7l scR 728 a 7972 a 7 d ferred to in r, of dul f n dulv sanctioned vacant Dosts mioht have p e emolovees have continued to been made and work for ten vears or more but without the intervention o o rders of the courts or ot tribunals. The ouestion of reqularization of the services of such emolo es mav have to be considered on merits in the lioht of the orincioles ttled bv this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the lisht of this udoment. In that context, the Union of and their stafe Governments India, the ke steDs to reoula rrze as instrume ntalities should rs or more aDDointed, who ha ve worked for in dulv sanctioned Dosts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should 'her ensu c fit* those vacan t sanctioned Dosts undert,aken to fill uD, ,n ca ne- tme measu ;h at I u ire to be m lo rs are oloved. The orocess must be set in motion m o now em th, on h m this da "5. tt is evident from the above that there is an exception to the generat principtes against 'regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : 24 SN, J wP t5407 2020 n t (i) The emptoyee concerned should have workrt for 70 years or 'more in duly sanctioned post without the benelit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In "ther words, the State Government or its instrumentality shottlc have employed the employee and continued him in servicc voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee shoLl I not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments 1'e not made or continued against sanctioned posts or whe 'e the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minin L m qualifications, the appointments wilt be considered to be illeo, l. But where the person employed possessec) the prescribed c talifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but t i d been selected without undergoing the process of open corr I etitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irrequt, r. ( iii) Umade vi casts a dutv Don he tke sfeDs to instrumentalitv, to Gove ment or reoularize the services of thos irreou arlY aDDointed emD vees who had served for more han ten vears without the benefit or Drotectionof anv I terim a rders of madevi. U st be n di rec moti n within six mon ths from the dat of its decision 6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be proper perspective. This would normally me decision in Umadevi, each department or ea, shoutd undertake a one-time exercise and pr casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who I for more than ten years without the interven tribunals and subject them to a process whether they are working against vacant po!l requisite qualification for the post and if ::t services. 7. At the end of six months from the ct. te of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-ho: casual employees were still pending before Courts. Cons )quentlY, several departments and instru menta lities did not c( mmence the one- time regularization process. On the ot ter hand, some Government departments or instrumentali:t 1s undertook the one-time exercise excluding several =mployees from consideration either on the ground that their ( lses were pending Lnderstood in its tn that after the h instrumentality )pare a list of all ave been working ion of courts and ,erification as to ; and possess the , regularize their that such one-time measure o.4.2006 or t, ne-ti ! a I e -J 25 SN, J wP ti407 2020 in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily- wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 1O.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 5j of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered. rtmen ic / i.rclr. rt,rd ntalities ,l^

8. The obiect beh,nd the said direction in oara 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. Fir,'st is to ensure that those who have Dut in more then ten wcar< of continu ous servtce of courts or tection of anv interim orde without the o tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considere d for reqularization in view of their lono service. Second is to ensure that the Dractice of emolo no Dersons on dailv-wat e/ad- hoc /casu I for lono Den ds and then D riodicallv reoularize them on the oround that thev have served for more tha ten vears, therebv defeatinq the constitutional or statu orv orovtstons relatino to recrui ent and aooointment. The true effect of the direction is that all Dersons who have worked for m ore than ten vears as on t out the o.4.2006( the da 7 Drotection of anv interim order of an v court or tribunal, in vacant Dos ts. oossessino the reouisite aualification, are entitled to be considered for reoula ization. The fact that tsron tn mad'evt lw th te f dec ,ta,-raetu n^i larizati' has not ,n slx k hs of ch exe decisio Umade vi or that such exerctse wa undertaken onlv tn reoard to a limited few. will not disentitl the rioht to be considered for reoula zation s, f the above direc tions in Umadevi asaon e-time in te measufe. 26 SN, J \vP t5407 2020 9. These appeals have been pending for more \han four years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appeltant l Zita panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of .espondents of regularization within six months of the decisic t in Umadevi or thereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has cirected that the cases of respondents should be considered in .,ccordance with law. The only further direction that needs be g ven, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila panchayat, Gac,i g should now undertake an exercise within six months, a g=ierat one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether tie e are any daity 'if wage/casual/ad - hoc emptoyees serving the Zila ,,anchayat and so whether such employees (including the res rcndents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of tJmatl,,vi. If they fulfi them, their services have to be regutarized. If s )ch an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or otr ttting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendenct of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered i.t continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. .t is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfitt the equirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not b, regutarised. If the employees who have conpleted ten years service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribet for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appe,t is disposed of accordingly.

16. In the iudo ment of the Aoe x Court inN rl tal Sinoh nd others v. State of Puniab reDorted in (2 o1:1 I 1 4 scc 65 the Supreme Court considered the case of ;rbsorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the !;tate, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose rt sposal their services were made available. It held that t te mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did n,l: render the appellants 'employees' of those Bankr; since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary 21 SN, J wP 15407 2020 control vested with the State- It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authority of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractuat relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also refused to the d n e that ther w r no sancti n t and so there was iustifica ion for the State to utilise servrcesofla roe num of eoD Ie like the ADD llants fo be f r es. It held h ioned osts do no r aven" and th e a to create th m conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment of need. Refer rinq to Umadevi, it held that the aooellants before them were not arbitrarilv chose their initial aDDointmen t was not an 'irreoula r ADDOI ntment as it had been made in acco rdance with the statutor VD rocedure orescribed under the Police Act, 1861, and the State cannot be heard to sa d into the serv th a thev are not entitled to be s basis as, accordinq to at, their appoantments utele purely temDorary and not aqainst anv ioned posts created 28 SN. J wP 15107 2020 by the State. It was held that the iudqme 1 t in Umadevi cannot become a licence for exploitation bv the State and ats instrumentalities and neither the G< vernment of Puniab nor those oublic sector Banks can c q ntinue such a r tn onsistent wi hth tr tion o function in accordance with the Constitution.

17. The iudoment of the Aoex Court rer[I rted in 2O15 SCC Online SC L797 between B.Srinivalusrr and others v Nellore M nicioal Corooration Reo.bv its ( om Nellore District, Andhra Prades and others - in oarticu la r oaras 7 and 8 reads as under: to S till toda We find it difficult to acceot the reasoni 1l_a-doDted b V the (7) e tk reqularization Hiah Court The riqht of the aooellants flows from the G.O. No.212 dat,ed 22.4. 19\) !. The aooellant have been in service of the first resDondent nc' l 9!ly_ orior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subsequeq t [o the issue of The respondent Municipality I eing a statutory G body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). InsL te of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite fc r almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellar ts and continued to extract work from the appellants. B. In the circumstances, refusing the bett 'fit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the app(t ants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is nat justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifyir,r the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' servi:'s be regularised with effect from the date of their completin r their five year continuous service as was laid down by thi:; Court in District Collector/Cha irperson & Others vs. M.L. Singn & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 480. f 29 SN, J wP r 5407 2020

18. In Amarkant Rai v State Bihar reDorted (2O15) 8 SCC 265, the Supreme Court held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularisation of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and en ure securr m rt ment of those erson rt w hn h ad <arved the St2fa Government and their instr umentalities for more than ten In that case, emDloveew a s workino tor 29 vea rs. vea rs". This decrsron a DDroves earlier view exDressed in M.L.Kesari extracted above.

19. In State of -Iarkhand v Kamal P rasad re o r)n L4 ) 7 SCC )a? Suore e Court and it was held as f !lows r vrew rer.a c cimil A tt ken ]rrr rted i n t "47.... rn view of the cateoorrcal findino of fact on the rele nt contentious Issue that the resoondent have continued in their servtce for more emolove e leoal than 7O vears continuouslv therefore. t r (State of Karnat,'aka v Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 7 : 2OO6 &Sl 731 et ara 53 stt uarelv anD lies to the la laiA down b devi ca t, e Divisio e res n m I for the relief. the same c annot be tn rfered rt htl with bv this Co urt." 30 Sn-. J tvP 15107 2020

20. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2022 passed in W.P.No.27602 ol 2O19 which pertains to egularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Svr amy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been rpheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 r,f 2023 dated

10.10.2023 and also confirmed by the order rf Apex Court dated O9.O8.2024an SLP No.32847 of 2024. 2L. The l udqment of the Aoex Court irr HariKrishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and O lers reported t tn AIR 2O2O Su reme Court 39 69 and in o rrticular Dara Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows: "100. The High Courts exercising their jr-r sdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, nc,1 only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or i-r the nature of mandamus, but are dutv-bou nd to € xercise such DOl^,er where the Governm ent or a Dl blic authorit v has f iled to exerctse or has wror I lv exercised uoon it bv d iscre tion conferr or a rule or AD olicv decision of the Governme nt or ras exerci sed i rre leva nt consideration. d scretion mal statul ,ln ,l J r.l

101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel rerformance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public, uthority.,, 3l SN, J wP r i407 2020 2

22. The Division Bench of this ourt in its Judqm ent dated f 2010 and 854 o 2O12 while u holdi no the ludoment dated 08.09.2010 oassed in W.P.No.24377 ol 2OO7 and C.C. No.4 of 2OO8 sed in W.A. 7 2 observed 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 a ppella nt- Corporation also issued various office orde rslcircu la rs dated 20.12.1989, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for regularrzation of casual/con[ract 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 tor 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 decislons 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."

23. The Division Bench of this ourt in its J udqment dated 19.O .2017 Dasse d in W.P. No.27217 of 2OL7 reDort di n 2018 (2)ALD oe 282 a oara 16 a nd oara 18 observed as u nder: -

16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout sut the country under Article 141 of the Constiiution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the Judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the 32 e pub I one- time posts, SN. J \\'P t-i 107 1020 provisrons of Act 2 of lgg4 and G.O. Mi No.212, dated 22.4.7994 were in existence. The Su prer re Court, whi denouncing the practice of regularization anc absorption of f persons/ who entered service throu gh back 1>ors by givin 9a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for I ppointments to ordered co n scio us ly n of those, who wer r woTking for a a bsorptio n/reg u Ia rizatio period of not less than 10 years. It has giver Jirect ions in this regard to all the State G overnments and also L r ion of India. The Supreme Court is pres umed to be conscious tf various Sta te of 7994 and executi! I orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, ng directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's SC (supra). But still, it has not mad e any exception in favour or he Slates where State enactments banni )sorption ex ist No.212, dated ,idth and the ra), does not ssued bv the in Uma Devi's ssible for the 94 nd .o. 1 tularization to _ satisfied the g oment in Uma r( r j

18. For the OA No.1442 this order. " d f < d 27.6.2077 In s set aside and i.! ection to the I he services of 1 rcies of Work q reir satisfvinq ! ) iudoment in ,J be completed pt of a copy of

24. T ED vtsl NB n 2 04. o2 a ed n A th s f2 oi 1 Ju q m ent dated c t ol 2o 19 and J-) SN, J wP 15407 2020 W.P.No.2 057 of 2019 reoo d in 2O2O(4)ALD Daqe 379 at Dara 45. 48 and oara 50 observed as under:- "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date.

48. o d the kn wn wh vi's case dent h r n exolained in M.L. Kes rt 's Case (suora) and undertaken a n a-iirra a I rtn^ tl.a r more than f .1ail wa n 1 e swh without the in ervention of the Courts and ribunals as on lO.4.2()06 and subiect them to a orocess verification as to e are w rkin possess requisite qualifications for the oosts, and if so. reqularize their services.

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, L6 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the e irected to on on I n vatrc petitioners' services from the date each of the petitioners r-Arafias from th ,./irrr6lafa h:l ln nf ha inili=l d a tn j men f f h entitled to anv monetarv relief. The said exercise shall be tn wo 2 we ks from th da e orr .l a ilv t B erf <anr coDy of the order."

25. A bare perusal of the impugned order dated 18.03.2O2O of the 1't respondent clearly indicates that there is a clear finding observing the contention of the respondents that the petitioners had not fulfilled the 34 SN..I \\/P 15401 2020 condation of minimum 5 years of service as cr, 25,11.1993 as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.O4.Lgg4 ard the same cannot be accepted in view of the law laid rlown by the various Courts in the Judgments referred to ;t rd extracted above, In so far as the other plea with regarrl to the other condition that the petitioners are not working against the sanctioned vacant posts is concerned, this Court in its order dated 2l.1-1-.20tg in Review I.A.No.!t of 2O19 in W.P.No.913O of 2O19 very ctearly observed the fact that the petitioners had been working for morr: than three decades and a further observation that the petitioners had worked against the sanctioned posts, a nd the said order dated 20.11.2019 in Review I.A.No.2 of 2O19 in W.P.No.g13O of 2O19 having attained its fini lity having not been chartenged by the respondents as , )n the date and the same having become final in favour ot petitioners herein, but, however, only with a mala fide ntention to deny the request of the petitioners for regur rrization of petationers services, the very same plea is l. ken by the respondents that petitioners did not fulfil the r: )nditaons of G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 2}.O4.tgg4 in the impugned order 35 S'\'-, J u,P t5407 2020 dated 18.03.2020 of the l't respondent and in the subsequent memo of the 2nd respondent dated 24,O3.2O2O, hence, this Court opines that the said pleas are not tenable and are passed in a routine mechanicat manner contrary to record and hence the same are rejected in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the various Judgments referred to and extracted above. 26. Learned counsel aDoea ino on behalf of the Detitioner s submits that the subiect issue in the Dresent case is so uarelv covered bv the order of this Court, dated

08.o9 .201O oassed tn W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 reoorted in 2011(1) ALD, Paoe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O. dated 10.06.2013 and also order, dated 19.09.2017 oassed in W.P.N o.272t7 of 2OL7 reoorted in 2018 (2) ALD Paqe 282 and also the order, dated 21.O4.2 O2O passed in W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 reoorted in 2O 20 4 ALD Paoe 379 ( )

27. Learned standino counsel aDoeaflno on behalf of the resoonde ntN .2 and3s u hm ts that he or t !evanc of th e e Detitioners as Dut- orth in the Dresent Writ Petition had t not been addressed to the resDondents herein as on date and th erefore the DE titioners ca n ot comolain inaction on n 36 SN. J wP t 5407 2020 art of resoondents h erein i con ! iderinq the qrievan ce of the De t to ners and hence, 1: re relief as oraved for bv the oetitione sintheo resent Arri etiti n cannot be oranted and no Mandamus cal be issued aoarn st the resoondents here u nder as souol'tl petitio for and the Ybedi r-ected to Dut forth tl'rr: oetitione rs qrievance as put-forth in the present Writ pe! ition bv wav ofa detailed re p resentation to the resoon ents herern receiot of the said tion, ther and reD resenta uDon ( resDondents would c nsider t e same rna 1 cordance to Iaw. within a reasona ble eriod

24. Learned counsel aDDearrno o be: ra!f of the oeti roners does not disoute the said su bmis s ion made the learned standino counsel aooearino on ! ehalf of the r onden Nos.2 a d3. ln the Dr:se nt

29. This Cou rt ooin es that case, respondents failed to d ischa rqe their dutv ir examtninq the request of the Detitioners for pe$ti lrrization of who are workinqasTi me Sc le req u workers and further to consider therr reouel; treat he 37 SN, J wP t5407 2020 services of the etitioners in the last qrade temDora ost of Ti c le work lar one for all ur bv orantino last orade oa with oeriodical increment revtsed from time to ti me from the date of aoooi ntment of the oetitioners, in accordance to law

30. This Court ooines that Detitioners are entitled for consideration of oetitioners ase for qrant of the relief as praved for in the Dresent Writ Petition in view of the observations of the ADex Court tn var ous iudqments (referred to and extracte d bove) and the view of the Division Benc h of this Court in the Judoments referred to and extracted above

31. This Court opines that only to deny the relief of regularization to the petitioners, the order impugned had been passed contrary to the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 79.09.2017 passed in the W.P.No.272L7 of 2017.

32. Takinq into consideration: (a) The facts and circumstances of the case, 38 SN. J wP I J407 2020 (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners a n d the learned standing counser appearing on beharf of the respondents, (c) The averments made in the counterr affidavit fited on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3, (d) The order dated 26.O4.2OLI pass,3 J in favour of the petitioners in W.p.No.9130 of 2019, (e) The order dated 20.11.2019 pass ed in Review I.A.No.2 of 2O19 in W.p.No.913O of 2Ot9 which has become final, (f) The impugned Govt. Letter, dated : 8.O3.2O20 of the lst respondent and the consequential memo dated 24.O3.2O2O ot 2"d respondent which had been passed mechanically, without application of minct ll / taking into consideration the view of the Apex Court an I this Court in the Judgments (referred to and extracte(l above) and which is contrary to the spirit of the order rf this Court dated 26.O4.2019 in W.p. No.913O of 2019 rnd also the order dated 2O.L1 .ZO1g passed in Review I.A. Vo.2 of 2O19 in W.P.No.913O of 2O19. 39 SN. J wP 15407 2020 (g) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: (i) (2020) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCc Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) 1 Scc 148 (vi) 201o(9) Scc247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, Page234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 (h) The Division Bench order of this Court dated

10.06.2013 passed in W.A. Nos.782 of 2O1O and 854 of 2O12 while upholding the Judgment dated 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 ( referred to and extracted above), (i) The Division Bench order of this Court dated L9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 oJ 2O17 (referred to and extracted above), 40 SN, J wP t5407 2020 (j) The Division Bench order of thi: Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A. Nos. 1 ol 2O2O in L of 2019 and W.P. No, 23057 of 2O19 (referred to and ext:r acted above), (k) In the light of discussion and :onclusion as arived at as above from para Nos.4 to 31 r f the present orde r. The writ petition is allowed, The or,t er impugned passed by the 1.t respondent vide Govt. Letter dated 18.03.2020 and consequential memo of the 2nd respondent dated 24.03.2O20 (referred to : nd extracted above) are set aside and the respondents ;rr e darected to reconsider the request of the petitioners for I egularization of services of the petitioners from the date o t completion of 1O years of service by the petitioners fr- rm the initiat date of the appointment, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt a copy of this order in accordance to law, in conformity with princit les of justice as directed by this Court in its earlier order dated 20.11.2019 passed in Review f.A. No. 2/2O1.,) in W.p. No. 193O of 2O19 which attained finality dut,/ taking into consideration the view of the Apex Court an(l thas Court in 41 SN. J wP 15407 2020 the present order and other Courts in the judgments (referred to and extracted above), by providing an opportunity of personal hearang to the petitioners and pass appropriate orders and duly communicate the decision to the petitioners. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- A. SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Co-operation Dept, Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

2. The Registrar, Prof.Jaya Shankar Telangana State Agricultural University, Rajendra Nagar, Hyderabad.

3. The Associate Director of Research Regional Agricultural Research Station, Polasa, Jagitial District.

4. Two CC to GP FOR SERVICES- l, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

5. One CC to SRI V.JAGAPATHI, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI VEDA VIKAS il/UDIRAJ VUPPARI, Advocate (OPUC) 7. Two CD Copies SA GJP HIGH COURT DATED: 1710712025 ( o C.C. TODAY (r.E STAra 2 lPF 2026 7 ,,4.vt ,r - J.l t ..-o ORDER WP.No.15407 of 2020 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. oS"