Writ Petition No. 15544 of 2021 · The High Court · 2025

20 1 1(1) ALD. Paae 234 as confirmedin \ r.A.No.782 of \ 6 SN, J 201O, dated 10.06.2013 and al so order, dated 19.09.2017 s di W.P.No.272L7 of 2Ot7 r or in2 ALD Paoe 282 an d also the order, dated 21.O4.2O2O passed in W.P.No.23O57 of 2OL9 reoorted in 2O2O(41 ALD Paqe 379. 5 Learned s an d tno cou se ar!n artn drl n e t n behalf of the res Dondent No.4 submits that heo rievance of the t oetitioner as Dut-forth in the present Writ Petition had not been addre ssed to the res Dondents herein as on date and therefore the oetitioner cannot com lain inacti non o D th e oart of resoondents herei n tn considerinq the qrievance of the Detitioner and hence. the relief as Draved for bv the petitioner in the oresent Wit petition cannot be qranted a nd no Mand mus can b tssued a oaanst the resoondents e hereunder as souoht f a n d the Detitioner mav be directed to out-forth the petitioner's qrievance as put- forth in the oresent Writ Petition bv wav of a detailed reDre sentation to the resoondents herei n and uoon recetD t of the aid reoresentation, the resD ondents would consider the sa me rn a ordance to !aw, within a reasonable Deriod. 7 ,\N..1 6 Learned counsel aooearinq on beh alf o I the oetitioner does n t disoute the aid submission m standin o couns ela DDeann o on be half of t.l re r s ondent the learn d ade r No.4. 7, The Apex Co urt in the iudqment reoorl din( 2020) 1 SCC (L&S) in Prem Sinoh v State of Utta r Pr h and I others, at oara 36 held a s under: "36. There are some of the employees who h a ze not been regularized in spite of having rendered the sc - ices for 30- 40 or more years whereas they have been su: lrannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged e; ablishment, not against any particular project, their serv ( ls ought to have been regularized under the Governmen instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Cour. in the said decision has laid down that in case service s naVe been rendered for more than ten years without thc :over of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the ;erv r:es be regularrzed of such employees. In the facts ' f the case, those employees who have worked for ten y I rTS oT more should have been regularized. it would not t I proper to regulate them for consideration of regularizat t n as others have been regularized, we direct that thelr ;ervices be treated as a regular one. However, it is ma I : clrlar that they shall not be entitted to claiming any dues f difference in wages had they been continued in servi e regularly ey shall be before attaining the age of superannuation ve retired entitled from t servtces rendered bv them r oht from the dav t[ rv entered !. _ :ounted as the work-charqed establishment shall be oualifyi no service for nsion. ' to receive the pension as if they tj he reoular establishment and th ouroose of o \ 8 SN. J

8. The Aoex Cou rt in the case oF D harwad District PWD Literate Dailv Waqe Emolovees Association Vs. State of Karnataka reDorte d in 199O(2) SCC Paq e 396 laid orinciole that the State should not kee p a person in temporary or hoc servi ef r n eriod and h VE I c ersons as

9. Para No.53 of the of the iudqment of the x qourt in the State of Karnatak a and others Vs. Umad evi, dated

10. 04,20O6 reoorted tn ( hereunder:- 2006 4SC 1 is extracted C ) "53. One aso ect needs to be clarified . There mav be irreoular aooointments (not illeqal cases wher aooointment ) as explained in S.V. Naravanaooa 28 R.N. Nan un L967 1 SCC 4O9l and B.N. Naoaraian 1L979 4) SCC sOTt a nd referred to in oara 15 above, of dulv oualified ncrsons tn r{rrlrr <anrtian ed vacant rt /t st< rn iahf h R 7 1 n lo ees h VE en mad rk for e lrarrlc !a ll .ir more lrut wi|.h ar rf intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals, The o uestion of reoularization of the services of such emolove es mav have to be con st dered on merits in the lioht of the orincioles settled bv this Court in the cases a bovereferred to and n the liqht of this I h State Governments and their tn s ru menta I iti es shou ld ta ke steDs to reoularize a s a one-time measure. the services of such irreo ularlv aooointed. n o have worked f sts hut not n da r cover of order C of th ment. In hat the Union cartr-fir'rrra d r n r r 9 SN. J courts or of trib una ls and should furtl rrr ensur to fill reqular recruitments are undertaker vacant sanctione d Dosts th at reouire in cases where te mpora rv emplo ees ( 2' dailv waoers are bein o now em loved. The orocess nus b set in motion within six mont hs from th is da': :. ... . e fille t t

10. The iudqment of the A ex Court datr

20.12. 24 rted in 2024 LawSuit(Sc) 1209 in Ja( qo Anita an d reDa oth er v. Union of India a nd others anrl the relevant 24, 26.27 and 28 a re extracted s.12, 1 No Dara he reu nde r: "12. Despite being labelled as "pa'r t-time workers," the appellants performec these essentiat tasks on a daily and cont nuous basis over extensive periods, rangint from over a decade to nearly two decader; Their engagement was not sporadic or tenr )orary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, l'r )gular, and akin to the responsibilities tv cically associated with sanctioned posts. Mc t eover, the respondents did not engage an'7 other personnel for these tasks durirrr I the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. n was ! s that The claim bv the resD nde n 13. 1 rit, as these were not re ul ar oosts I cks m .l rv the the nature of the work oerformed ndam,:1tal to the fu nctio ninq of the o lces. The r < cu rring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespectiver of how their initial engagements were labelled. I: is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing :' these same tasks to private agencies af- r the \ \ \ l0 SN, J appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing/ which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional. 24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing beneFits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and 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 hiohlio ts the iudicia rv's role in rectifvinq iscta ssificatio s and ensurinq that worker 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 clalms of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" appointments. t cate orica I I e trreo ular a Dointments. wh o were enoaoed in dulv san ioned oosts and had served " irreg u la r" h at em o l1 SN, J co ntin uouslv for more than ten v ea rs _ ,hould be con sidered for requla rization as ! one- the Iaudable rr ent of time measure. However, the judgment is being subverted when ins -utions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately rt: ( ct the claims of employees, even in cases whe r I thelr appointments are not illegal, but mer'r y' lack adherence to procedural formalities. Go'.r: nment departments often cite the judgment in [] I a Devi (supra) to argue that no vested r ' ht to regularization exists for temporary em: oyees, judgment's lx p ricit overlooklng the acknowledgment of cases where regulari' ' tion is 1 storts a ppropriate. This selective apolication-1 the iudqment 's soirit and D uroose, effr 1:tivelv wea Don izi noitaq inst em olovee wl^ t have _ over ren dered deca des. in d isoensable services In light of these considerations in our 27. opinion, it is imperative for gov I -nment departments to lead by example in provi'1 nq fair and stable employment. Engaging worker I on a temporary basis for extended periods, e; recialiy when their roles are integral to the organi ation's functioning, not only contravenes intelr ational labour standards but also exposes the orga t ization to legal challenges and undermines enr rloyee morale. By ensuring fair emplc yment practices, government institution; can reduce the burden of unnecessary lit'r lation, promote job security, and uphol I the principles of justice and fairness th I : they are meant to embody. This approact aligns with international standards and r ets a I tor to positive precedent for the private s€ iollow, thereby contributing to the rverall betterment of labour practices in the cc untry' In view of the above discussi rn and 2A. findings, the appeals are allowed. The ir-r lugned orders passed by the High Court and the - ribunal \ \ are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: SN. J i. The termination orders dated 27 .10.2018 are quashed; The aDDellant s shall be taken ii. d utv forthwith and their back on servlces reoularised forthwith. th e anDellants shall not be Howev e r ntitl d ecunlar benefits/back w es for the oeriod thev have not worked for but would be entitled to continuitv of services rth e sar d Deriod and the sam e their oost- would be counted for retiral benefits." a

11. The Judo ment of the Aoex Cou rt dated 31.O1.2025 reoorted in 2O 25 INSC 144 in "SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGA , GHAZIABAD", iN Oarticular, the relevant pa'ra Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder: rta in *15. It is manifest that t e Aooellant Workmen continuouslv rendered their services over several vears, sometimes soanninq more than a decade, in fu ll the Emolover's failure to furnish such records- desDite directions to do so-allow s an adverse inference labour iurisprudence. Indian labour law stronqlv disfavors Derpetual dailv-waqe or c ractual enqaqements in circumstances where the work is ermanent in under well-establish ed re not l3 s\. .l ork(:r s who f u lfil natu re. Morallv and leoallv, onqoinq mu ciDal re utrements ve. r after vea r cannot be dismissed su mmarilv ar; dis oensable icu la rly in the absence of a qenl I 1e contractor At this juncture, it would l)'r appropriate to recall lhe broader critique of indefin t: "temporary" employment practices as done by a rece I judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India i1 the following paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse of tempor< -y employment contracts, as exemplified in this I rse, refl':cts a broader systemic issue that ac' ersely affects workers' rights and job security n ihe llrivate sector, the rise of the gig econonr z has led to an increase in precarious employmerr arrangerrlents, often characterized by lack of benef l;, job security, and fair treatment. Such practi(.( s have been criticized for exploiting workers a ^ 1 undermining labour standards. Government institll ions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairr r, ss and justice, bear an even greater responsibilitV to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misus€ of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the d€t imental trends observed in the gig economy l).1 also sets a concerning precedent that can erode 1 ublic trust in governmental operations. 25. It is a disconcerting reality t'lat temporary employees, particularly in governrrt nt institutions, often face multifaceted forms of ex. oitation. While the foundational purpose of tempora' contracts may have been to address short-term or :easonal needs, they have increasingly become a me: lanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long- r rm obligations owed to employees. These practi,: :s rlanifest in several ways: \ \ l4 SN, J a Misuse of "TemDorary" Labels: Emplovees e r ork th IS rec rnn h and inteqral to the functioninq of an institution are often labelled as "temDorarv" or nw n n r r f those of h misclassification deorives u{qrkers of the dionitv, securitv. and benefits that reqular emolovees are entitled to, desoite oerforminq identic I tasks. . 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 rarses. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite theii- contributions being equally 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 reg ula r 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. " l5 SN, J

16. The High Court did acknowledge e Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations' Consequently' it ordered re-engagement on daily wa! ( s rvith some measure of parity in minimum pay Regrelt rbly' this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant \/orkmen were left in a marginally improved yet still url ertain status' While the High Court recognized the impo tance of their work and hinted at eventual regularizati I r' it failed to afford them contlnuity of service or meanrnlJ ul back wages commensurate with the degree of star t tory violation evident on record. t7. In light of these considerations, : re Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workr-:n stands in violation of the most basic labour law prrnc i )les' Once it is services were terr.r nated without established that their 6E and 6N of the J.P. Industrial adhering to Sections thev wel { en oaqed in and that Disputes Acl, 1947, ntia l, Pere nnra I duties these worl )rs canno be es e rel eq ated top eroetua I uncerta i ntv. VI rile nc rns E liance with I d onc rns recr uitment r les 'vo bliqat ions do no abs ve th Em Inde q ate b rea rl hts of workmen who haveserved < ntin uou sl de fact n, e titlemet s. rect ula r roles for ane ende d p:riod. m hel eoitim ate nsid erati t e eo itabl t o I ) (

18. The xten th d o fin h e Hiqh Cou rt, to the rk fle n to future el nt r6 Sr-, J enOaqement without continuitv or dailv-waoe mea nrn oful back waoes. is herebv set asid e with the fo llo n o d irections: L The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services/ effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuiiy in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire period of absence ( fro m the date of termination until actual reinstatem nt) shall be counted for continuitv of service and all conseouenti al benefits, such as nioritv and elioibilitv for oromotions, if anv. s 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. IV. The Resoondent Emolover is di cted to in itiate a fair and transDarent Drocess for the Aooellant Work men within six reoularizin te of on hsf considerino the fact that thev hav performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent t h rio ctc hal! not imoose educational or Emolover criteria retroactivel if such oroced u ra I reoutre ents were to the ever aoolied raar rlr riza ti on accessln lt 17 SN. ] t. f ) t ular em olovees in he oa AP e lla nt Work eno rto s im i li rlv situated e exte nt that sa n ctio ned vacanc ies for suc I duties exist or a re requl red, th e ResDondent t ND lover shall ex ped ite all n ecessarv a d m in istra VE DTOcesses are not to ensure these ind finitel s tain don t eo ul ble norms. 19. In view of the above, the appeal(:; filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appea (;) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed." lonqt mee Dlc ee wa €scon tra r d 'l L L2. The Aoex Court in a iudq ent reDort€ ( in( 2017) 1 L48 ofP n E b and others u reme Court Cas vs Jaqiit Sinqh and others at Paras5 4 and tss b- ara (1)(2)(3) , of the said udq ment observed as .! nder: "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, t't tile adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, -that temporary e:mployees were not entitled to the minimum o' 'he regular pay- scate,' merely for the reason, that the activit c; carried on by daity-wageri and regular employees were simit) ''. The full bench however. made two exceptions. Temporary enrl loyees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held enli led to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees' The exceptions recorded by the futt bench of the t gh Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:- "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contti.'tual appointee a)giinst the regular sanctioned posts, tr appointed after uidergoing a ietection process based t1on. fairness and equality of opportunity to all other el rible candidates' r pay scale from shatl be entitted to minimum of the regu ' the date of engagement. 2 a sanctioned da i, Dosts a e h d err serl/,t( _)r contractual '1'ainst reqular 1s are availed l8 SN, J continuo uslv, with notional breaks, bv the Stete Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient lonq per od i.e, for 7O rs. such dailv waoers. ad hoc or contractual aDDointees shall be entitled to the reoular Dav scale without anv minimum of il wances ilable a e such lonq period of time, an equitable rioht is reqularizat.'ion. if anv, mav have to seDara lv in terms of le allv oermissible s trc tm considered eme. t work worked nial na tn su (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of comptetion of 10 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three Years and two months."

13. The iudoment of th Aoex Court rEDorted in 2o 10 9 ) scc 247 between: State of Karnat aka and other SV M.L.Kesari an d others, in oa icular, Daras 4 to 1O reads as u n der: 4 The decision in S tate of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered on 10.4.2 06 (reDorted in 2006 (4) SCC 1). In that case, a Constitution Beneh 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 Article 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 instru mentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court 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 19 SN. .I adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Const \tion. This Court however made one exceptton to the abo'to position and the same is extracted below : 1 Z ! ? l. There mav be not ille /. Naravanaooa tooa t7972 (71 ) scc 07l ) f dulv oualified ,sts midh t have withou "53. One asDect needs to be clarifi' cases where irreoular aPPointm., I aDDointm ents ) as exolain edinS 17967 (,) scR 728t. R. N. Naniun SCC 4091 and B.N. Naoaraian [79 rred to in Dare 7 above, t sanction been made and the emDlovees h. e t work for ten vears or more L ! interven ion of orders of he court or of tribunals, t The oue stion of reoular ation of :he services of such emplovees mav have to be nsidere merits in the liqht of the principles settled bv this Court in the cases aboverefer red t( in the I h of this iudsment. In that context the Uni,on of the State covernment; and India. instru mentalities should take sfeDs 'o reoularize as a one-time measure, the services ot ;Uch irreoularlv who have wor, ed for te vears or more a DDoint. , in dulv sanction Dosts but not tnder cover of orders of the courts or of tribun,,ls and should further ensure that teqular re'. ruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant s nctioned posts uire to be fill. uD, ,1 CaSeS where temDo now em loved. The oroce must l, ,t set in motion within six months from this date. ... emolovees or dailv wa,ers a . , '5. It is evident from the above that thct) is an exception to the general principles against 'regularizat't n' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled ' (i) The employee concerned should have work= I for 70 years or more tn duly sanctioned post without the beneF, or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. Ir )ther words, the State Government or its instrumentality shou't have employed the employee and continued him in servic = voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years, (ii) The appointment of such employee shotl I not be i egal, even if irregular. Where the appointments ) e not made or continued against sanctioned posts or wh:-e the persons \ \ 20 :\. J appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selectton, such appointments are considered to be irregular. l Umadevi casfs a d t Government or instrumentalitv, to take stelrs to resu larize the services of those irreoularlv aDDointed emplovees who had served for more than ten vears without the benefit or p rotection of anv interim orders of e measure. Umadev directed that such pne-time measure must be s motion within six months from the date of its decision ( rendered on 7O.4.20O6).

6. The term one-time measure' has to be understood tn its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the deciston in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instru mentalities did not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration etther on the ground that their cases were pending 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/ad hoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.20O6 t tithout availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any 21 SN. J 5 t ar, 53o tat those who servrce. Second ,s to en rre that ,es DCrsons on employer had held the one-time exercise in tet r ts of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of sorr: ttmployees who *ur" uniitt"d to the benefit of para 53 of t-Jmaa: 't, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as ' continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise' "'ll be concluded t be considered only when all the employees who are entitled " in terms of Para 53 of LJmadevi, are so considt:'t'i' eob ect behind thesaid direction n Dut ,nmo D hoc/casual or statutorv Drovts, ons relatina t dDDtointm t. Th Dersons who have worked for 8 Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure than ten vears of con t nuou se h rotection of anv interi m ord ? 's of courts or without the r Umadevi was trib!unals, before the dateof decision ir rendered, are considered for reoula rizali tn in view of their lon not 2rrpetuate the artm s tn y ailv-waqe/ad- tice of emolovin r lonct Dertods and th,-' , Deriod icallv la rize themonth e oroun d that thev \rve served for than ten v ears, therebv defeati nq th5 constitutional 1 ruitment and Orc true effect of the dire' ,on ts hat a ,n vears as on Uma (:l i) without the or tribunal, in Drotec tion of anv interrm order of anv cou vacant Dosts. oossessino the requrs ite qr tlification, are , The fact that en tled to be considered for reoularizatiar u ndtertaken su: te xercise of the emp z decBton tn reou la r za tion within stx U isentitle such limited few, will n t req rdtoa emolo vees. the rioht tobeco nside reaularization in terms of the above d irect ions in Umadev asao e-time measu re. 9. These appeals have been pending for mor: than four years after the decrsion in umadevi. The Appellant 'Zila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases or respondents of reguiS'rization within six months of the decist) t in Umadevi or thereafter. rt hat such exercise was und -ta ke onl lover has not .4.200 a I t h E

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has cases of respondents should be considered ir law. The onl)/ further dtrection that needs be ' LJmadevi, is that the zila PanchaYat, Ga: undertake an exercise within six months, a l rirected that the lccordance with iven, in view of tg should now neral one- time ) 22 sN", J regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) futfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they futfilt them, their services have to be regularized. If such an e^ercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents I to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considerbd in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needtess to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees 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. L4. In the i dqment of the Apex Court in Nihal Sinqh and others v. State of Punia b reoorted in (2O 13) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid 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 control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctaoning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authoraty of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make SN, J co ntra ctua I I refused to appointments of Persons creating relationship, its action is arbitrary' It a!i acceDt the defence that there were no sa r des. It held that l tioned oosts so there was i ustification for the St. te to utilise services of la rqe n umber of oeoDl e like the ; opellants for sa nctione d oosts do not fall f rom the State has to creal( them bva conscious ch oice on the basi s of some ration :lass smen held that t te aDoe I la nts of nee before them were not arbitrarilv chosen thei d. Referrinq to Um devi, aven" and that in itia , 1 ore sc undert intment was not an 'ir req ular'apDointr ent as it had aDpo been made tn accorda nce with the statut E ry Drocedure Police Act, 1861,; rd the State not be heard to sav th at thev are not ntitled to be abso rbed into the servlcesofth e State c n Derma nent en1 were ou relv ba sisas,a tem DOrarv and not a oa in st anv sa n ctioned _ )osts created bv the State.I wa held h ccord i notoit,t heir a oooi nt ert in Um the ud ca n not becom its instrum e a licence for exploi tation bv :he State and the G( vernm ent of entalities a nd neither Pun ab nor those pub lic se ctor Ban ks can c rti n ue such a 21 SN, J Dractice in consistent with their obliqation to fun ction in accordance with the Constitution.

15. The iudqment of the Apex Court reDorte 15 sCC Online SC 1797 between B.Srinivasulu and others v Nellore Munic oal Corooration Reo.bv its Commissioner, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh and others, in Darticular Daras 7 and 8 ads as under: (7) We find it difficult to acceDt the reasonin o adoDted bv the riqht of the aDoellants to seek reqularization Hiqh Court flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994 The aooellant have been in service of the first resoondent not onlv Drior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subsequent to the issue of G.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 without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants. B. 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' services 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/Chairperso n & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 4BO,

16. In Amarka nt Rai v State of Bihar reDo ted (2O15) I scc 26s. the Suoreme Court held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular 25 SN. J but not illegal, and to ensure appointment;, which are sec u ritv of irregutar but not illegal, and to ensur( ovment of those oersons whohads er \ ed the State Gov ernmen tandt eir rnstrumen alities fOrr I ore than ten lor 29 vears. In that case . emolovee was worki n( vea rs". t" This decis ion a Droves earlier view (Dressed in M.L. Kesari extracted above reDo ed in of .Iarkhand v Kamal Prasa 17. In State 20L4) 7 SCC 223, similar view was l:i ken bv the Suprem e Court and it was held as foll ws ( ( In vi wofth e cateoo rical findino >f fact on the "47. rele nt con ntious issue th t the re DOn r tnt emolovees have con nued in thetr service for more_:han 70 years conti n uouslv therefo the leoal orinciole lai tka v made l of Ka Sta e .a 53 squarelY L&S 73 a app lies to the D resent cases, The Divisi<rt Bench of the resDo ndent tme ca nnot be emolo vees are entitled for the relief, interfered with bv this Court." inU CC7: vt c. 6S is Co o6 rt ha rt h e h t 5 L

18. The Judgment of this Court datec O6'L2'2O22 passed in W.P.No.27602 ot 2019 whi< n pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakslr ni Narasimha Swamy Tempte, Yadadri, Nalgonda l) strict, which had been upheld by the Division Benct of this Court \ 26 SN, J in W.A.No.937 of 2O23 dated 10.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated

09.O4.2O24 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.

19. The i ud ment of the A Dex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Ma harashtra and Othe s reoorted I ln AI R 2O2O Suore me Court 3969 nd in oarticul ar Dara Nos.lOO and 1O1 held a s follows: "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are utv-bound to exercise such w r where th has failed to exercise or has wrono V exercised d iscretion conferred u Don at bv a statute. or a rule, or a oolicv ecision of the Government or has exercised fide, or on arrelevant such discretion mala consid ratio n. vernment or blic authori

101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and Iawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority.,' 20, The Division Bench of t is Cou rt in its J udqment d ated 10.06.2 o13 of 2012 while u D Da s sed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O nd 854 holdino the Judom ent dated 08. 9.2010 Dassed i n W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.4 I of 2008 observed as under:- 27 "Further, lt is manifest from the material c r services of the similarly placed persons who a 1 Courts were regularized. The appellant-Corp'> various offrce orders/circulars dated 20 12 1 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for casual/contract employees, 1t is also to be se l T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice or workman. As can be seen from the factLl cases on hand, engaging the respondents fc t continuous period of time on casual basis is labour practice attracting the provisions of Sir ID Act. The learned Single ludge while relyir t of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respcr to regularization as directed in the impugrrt learned slngle Judge considered all the aspet;l detail, in the proper perspective, which, in cL does not warrant interterence in these appea s SN, J record that the proached the law ation a lso issued r89, 11,09.1992, regularization of that Section 25- by any employer I scenarlo of the such a long and othing but u nfa ir ction 25-T of the on the decisions Jents are entitled d orders, as the ; of the matter in -, considered view 21. The Division Bench of thas Court dated 19.O9.2017 passed in W'P'No'2 t 2L7 ot 20L7 2018( 2)ALD Daoe 28 2 at Dara.6a nd Dar 18 reDorted i ir its J o bserved as under:- "16. It is trite that the law declared by th: binding throughout the country under I'r Constiiution of India. It is noteworthy th'1 judgment tn Uma Devi's case (supra), /1 provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G O v 2?.4.1994, were in existence' The Sup" denouncing the practice of regularization 't persons, who entered service through bacl go-bye to the due procedure prescribed f: Iublic posts, consciouslY ordered a bso rption/reg u la rization of those, who v r period of not less than 10 years. It has 9iv€ regard to all the State Governments and il The Supreme Court is presumed to be consc ( enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and exec- G.O. Ms. No.212, daled 22.4.1994, while r Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi s still, it has not made any exception in favout State enactments ba nning regularizatlor Supreme Court is :icle 141 of the by the time the as rendered, the ;. No.212, dated me Court, while d absorption of f doors by giving a appointrnents to one-time re working for a r directions in th is io Union of India. ,.r s of various State ive orders such as iving directions in case (supra). But ,f the States where 'absorption exist. SN. J f h direct on st the f rare torv of Therefore. Act 2 of L994 and G.O. M s. No.212. dated 2.4.19 4 don in Maniula Bashini's case (suora), do s not iudom ent th e e SuDre me Court in Para 53 of its iudom nt in Uma Devi's erefore h resDonden ts to take shelter und er Act 2 0f 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, to env reoulariza tion to etitioners. who ha ve, ad m ittedlv. satisfie d the criteri a laid down in Pa ra No.53 of the iudqment in Uma Devi's case (su ora ). 18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2017, in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside od rerir. h the Airal^Jin nt .ri h and f h resDon dents to consider reo ularisation of the services of the Detitioners oainst the existino v cancies of Work Insoectors and Dooint the subiect to their sat isfvinq the criteria laid dow in Para N o.53 of the iud oment in Uma D vi's case (suo ra ). This oroce ss must be co m Dleted this o rder. " t eti t f rec mo nth ith in c 22, The Division Benc of this Court in its Judqment dated 2L.O4.202(J Dassed in .A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 o 20L9 and W.P.No.23 O57 oJ 2OL9 reoorted in 2O2O(4)ALD Iaqe 37 9 at oaras 45, 48 an d Dara 50 ob erved as n der: - "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. 44. It is no nown whv the 1st res Dondent h s not m exo la ined in M.L. Kesari's case (suora) and unde rtaken a on e-ti e exerc sef) I)arrnd emDlovee s who had worked for mo re than ten ( lO) vears witho ut the inte ention of t e Courts a d Tribunals as on 10.4. OO6 and su biect them to a Drocess verification as to hether thev are workino aoarnst vacant Dos th e listof t k da il a c n D 29 S\, J req urs requlariz e theirservtc es. q lificatio ns for the DO ! is. and if so, the writ petition is allowed the impugned 50. Accordlng Y, orders dated 20 8.2019 passed by the 1st respc lCent rejecting ularization of : r :';ices on one- the cases of Petitioners for reg arbitrary : rd violative of a red as illegal, time basis are dec onstitutio n of India; the 16 and 21 of the C Artlcles 14, 1 ne-time basis n en l1e petitioners qes from the 1 hal not tled to anv moneta rv relief . The said e rrcise sha ll be tc of receiot of rvlce fro f o e h h e 2 on wit t f he rder

23. The Jud omentoftheA pex co urt dat€ j(

19. 08.2025 scc ONLINE ScL7 e 35i No. 58 f2 8re ( rted in 2025 ers v. "Dh aram Sinqh i, ld oth 'elevant para Another,,, in oa rticular, th€ State of U.P. and Nos.1 3. 17 .18. 1 9 and 20 are extr cted her(: tn d er: "13, As we have observed in both laggo (:; Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot tl convenient shield to perpetuate precarlousr( sidestep fair engagement practices where t,l inherently perenniat. The Commission': contention that the appellants are not employees but continue only by virtue orders also does not advance their case' Tt protection was granted precisely because : hi.toty of engagement and the penderrt challenge to the State's refusals' It neitlr rights ihat did not exist nor erases entitler may arise upon a proper adjudication of th'l those ref usa ls. 17. Before concluding, we think it necess' I that the State (here referring to both the rpra ) and :come a ss and to e work is fu rthe r 'full-time" f interim at interim ' the long y of the lr creates rents that legality of 7 to recall J nion and \ \ 30 SN, J the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the 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 Iabels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly 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. Sensitivlty 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 off ices 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 d irections: i. Regularizataon and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect )l SN, J gh Court mmission ing posts : and tht: Services lUmerary D river or luard or tion s. On ]d at not le for the igher and bsequent rad e. For from the from 24.04.2002, the date on which the - directed a fresh recommendation by the C ( and a fresh decision by the State on sancti(,' for the appellants. For this purpose, the StE 1 successcr esla b lish men t (U.P Educaticr Selection Conrmission) shall create sup€'r posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III equivalent) and Class-IV ( Peon/Attenda nt / equivalent) without any caveats or precon J regularization, each appellant shall be pla: less than the minimum of the regular pay-s(:, post, with protection of last-drawn wages if I the appellants shall be entitled to the r; increments in the pay scale as per the pay r seniority and oromotion, service shall cout't date of regularization as given above. rs: Eacl-r ii. Financial consequences and arrei appellant shall be paid as arrears the full I iffe re nce :es at the between (a) the pay and admissible allowatt minimum of the regular pay-level for the rost from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of may be. regularization/retirement/death, as the case Amounts already paid under previous intennl directions shall be so adjusted. The net arre,) s shall be released within three months and if in d€ 'ault, the st at 6oli, unpaid amount shall carry compound intetr per annum from the date of default until payt rent. i ii. Retired aooellants: Anv a ooell a n t arho has alreadv reti red shall be oranted reoui arization with effect from 24.O4.2OO2 until th,3 date of superannu ation for oav fixation, arre,l's under clause (ii) . and recalculation of Densto rr qratuitv and other terminal dues. The evised oer sion and ithin thre:r month terminal d ues shall be oaid of this J doment. iv. Deceased aooellants: I n the case of who has Apoellant No. 5 and anv other aooellant died durinq oendencv. his/he1 laid the reoresentatives on record shall be arrears under clause (ii) uo to the date _:f death, toqether with all inal/retir g l \ \ 32 SN, J rec a lcu lated co n sistentl with cla use r i). within three months of this Judo ment. v, Compliance affidavit: The principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government oF Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.p. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit oF compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgment.

20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling "reconsiderations,', and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that 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 of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, L6 and 2l of the Constitution oF India

24. Thi s ou rt OD es that in rh e D rese nt case t h e res Dondents failed to ischa roe their dutv in examrnrnq the reouest of e er's servi the oetit oner for hoisw tn a req u la razation of r me sw JJ SN, J and further to conside r his reouest to treat _ he temporarv service of the Detiti oner in the last q rade Do; wee er as reo ular o D s for all DUr osesb qrant inq last I qrade Dav with e riod ica I increment revtse f rom time to ! time from the date of aD intment of thr Detitio ner. tn o accordance to law.

25. This Cou rt ooines that oetitio ner consideration of oetitioner's ca se for qrant - rf the relief as oraved for in the oresent Writ Petiti on r view of the observations of the Aoex Court in va rl,! r.r s iudqments entitl ed for I (referr to and extracted above) and th vrew o h Division B ench of this Court in the Judomt rts referred to and extra ed above.

26. Ta ino into consid rati o n: - a) The aforesaid facts and circumstancesi )f the case' b) The submissions made by the lt: rrned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and lr: trned standing counsel appearang on behalf of the responck rnt Nos.4 & 5 34 SN, J c) 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) 202s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) 1 scc 148 (vi) 201o(e) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC 1797 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (20o6) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 (xvii)202s SCC ONLINE SC 1735 di The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos'782 of 2O1O and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dated 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2O08 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated t9.O9.2O17 passed in W.P.No.272t7 ot 2O17 (referred to and extracted above), i5 SN, J f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 21,O4,2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in : of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 ot 2Ot9 (referred to and extr,::ted above). g) In the light of discussion and conclusiorr as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 26 of the presen:order. T ew itP titi ts allowed u orth the claim of f, tition he g etitioner for a so the clai m ion er's services, a requ larization of peti of the oetition rtot reat the temoorarV sl Detitioner in th last o rade oost of Swe eoer i ;requ la r one for all our DOSeS bv or ntin o last o rade oavv th periodi ca! ncrem ents revl sed from time to time fronr the dat of AD ointm ent of the ition e r and ) nseo uential Det I C benefits, dulv en closinq all the relevant I suDDort fD etitio ner's caseasD ut-fort writ oetition, wt thin a oeriodofo ne (0 1) vr e )cu ments tn I lrI the present fromthe .! shall exam tne nd co n sider the me ]n a( cor an t ,:_ respondents tn confo rmitv with o ri n ci Dle sofna tu l'i I Drovrdino an oDo ortu n i ersonal he; I \ sti eb 'inqt ot he i \ t6 SN, J petitioler. in ternns of orders oassed bv the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case reported in 2OO6(4) SCC Paqe 1, the iudqment passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 dated 08.09.2010 reported in 2O11 (1) A!9, Pase234 tnd as confirmed in W.A.NoJ82 ofJOaO dated 10.06.2O13, and also as per Division Bench Judqment of this Court dated L9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.27277 of 2007 reported in 2018(2)ALD paqe 2A2 and also the Division Bench Judqment of this Court dated 2L.O4.202O Dassed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 in W.P.No.23O57 of 2Ot9 reported in 2O2O(4)ALD Daqe 379 which had attained finalitv, within a Deriod of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copv of this order, dulv takinq into cottsideration the observations and the law laid down by the ADex Court in the various iudqments (referred to and extracted above), and in particular, para No.53 of the iudqment of the ADex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v, Uma Devi and dulv communicate the ision to the etitioner. However there shall be n orde ra s to costs. L 31 1 SN, J Miscella neous petitions, if any, in; in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SJ -M.OSMAN ALI BAIG AS I ISTANT REGISTRAR tt' SECTION OFFICER I To,One fair copy to the HON'BLE MRS JUSTTCE SUi -pALLt NANDA (For Her Ladyship's Kind Perusal) '1 11 L.R. Copies. 2 The Under S_ecretary, Union of lndia, l\,4inistry of Lav, Justrce and Company Affairs, New Delhi. 3 The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Associatrc r Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad

4. The Principal Secretary, Panchayathraj Department, St rte of Telangana, Telangana Secretariat. Hyderabid.

5. The Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Depa( I ent, State of Telangana, Government of Telangana, Telanjana Ser;r :taliat, Hyderabad. 6. T.he District Collecto(Panchaya ts) and Chairman of S,) )ction Committee, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

7. The Chief Execut ve Officer, Zrlla Paja parishad, Nargc rda District. 8. The Mandal Development Officer, Munugodu Manda!, I algonda District 9 One CC to SRI CH GANESH Advocate [OpUC] 10 Two CCs to GP FOR SERVTCES tt ,High Court for thc ]tate of Telangana at Hyderabad . [OUT] 1,1 ONE CC tO SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, STANDTNG I] )UNSEL IOPUC]

12. Two CD Copies DAN/PMK \ HIGH COURT DATED:0811012025 (:C TODAY ORDER WP.No.15544 of 2021 L) C) t I t[B ?u[ i ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 6 g,b a\3,\