The High Court · 2025

Order

Heard Sri B. Praveen, learned counsel representing Sri P. Raghavender Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for MA&UD appearing on behalf of the respondent No.l, learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 and Sri G. Narayana, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 and 4.

2. The oetition r aporoached the Court kinq oraver as under:

"...,to issJ,g Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus by declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing petitioner's services in terms of orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case (2006 (4) SCC 1) from the date of date of completion of 10 years of service as followed by this Hon'ble Court in WP No.24377 /2007 dt.8.9.2010 (2011 (1) ALD 234) as confirmed in WA No.782l2010 dt. 10.6.2013 and also in WP No. 27217 /2017 dt. 19.9.2017 (2018 (2) ALD 282) and in WP No.23057/20r9 dt.2L.4.2O2O (2020 (4) ALD 379) is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to regularize petitioner's services from the date of completion of 10 years as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case as followed by this Hon'ble Court in WP No.272L7/2Ot7, dt. ) \ .-rEIl 6 19,9.2017 and in several cases as referred supra with all attendant benefits and pass...,,

3.7 c t e r a t averm ents mad ein the affid vit filed bvtheo etiti ner in SUDDOrtoft heoresentW rat Petition is as nde i) The petitioner was appointed on 29.72.198g as Non pH Worker on NMR basis in the then Kapra Municipality, at present, the petitioner is working in Kapra Circle i.e., 4th respondent circle of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, qs such frorn the date of petitioner,s initial appcintment petitioner had been continuously working without any blenrish whatsoever fro, the higher authorities. It is further the case of the petitioner that after completion of 5 years of service, the petitioner vras alrowed to draw periodical increments from the date of granting time sca le. ii) It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner has put in more than 34 years of service on daily wage under the control of the respondents, though the petitioner has been working since tong time, the services of the petitioner,s had not been regularized on the ground that the petitioner has not put an 5 years of 7 a 7 servace as on 25.t1.1993 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.212, F&P, dated 22.4.1994. iii) It is further the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner is getting time scale from 1996 onwards along with periodical increments from the date of granting the time scale. As such, the petitioner is getting all the benefits on par with the regular employees however, the services of the petitioner's have not been regularized till as on date, despite repeated requests mad'e by the petitioner to the respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the petitibner filed the present writ petition. 4 A. "3. It is submitted that all the petitioners are working since L996, as NMRS and they are being paid minimum time scale and also getting the periodical increments from the date of grant of time scale But. the eliqible for reoularization. It is submitted that the petitioners have not completed ten years of services in 4th Respondent Corporation to consider their case for \ 8 regularization in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in Umadevi,s case. It is further submitted that in Umadevi's case the apex court mentioned some other conditions also such as they have to appointed in sanctioned post, appointment must be irregular one, availability of vacancies, qualification, and they must be continuously working for more than ten years without the benefit olany court orders, moreover it was one time measure. In view of the same the judgment rendered by apex court in Umadevi's case is not applicable to the case of the petitioners. Hence petitioners are not entifled to regularization of the services. 4. It is submitted that when the petitioners have not put in 5 years of service as such they are not eligible for regularization of their services in the existing the vacancies. This aspect is also considered by the Supreme Court in Manjula Bhashini,s case where the Supreme Court also considered and observed that a person who complete 5 years of service by 25.11.1993 alone for regula rization. "

5. Lea FT.I'If.] lno o beh lf of n"

6. Learned counset appearing petitioner submits that the subject issue in the present behalf ID I case is squarely covered by the order of this Court dated O8.09.2O10 passed in W.P.No.24377 ol 2OO7 reported in 2011 (1) ALD, Page 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 10.06.2013 and also order dated L9.O9.2O17 passed in W.P.No.272l7 of 2O17 reported in 2O18 (2) ALD Page 282 and also the order dated 21.O4.2O2O passed in W.P.No.23O57 ot 2O19 reported in 2O2O (4) ALD Page 379, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the said submission made the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. n n a n 7 a m IO therefore, the oetitioner cannot comolain inaction on the oart of resoondents herein in considerinq the orievance of the oetitioner and hence, the relief as oraved for bv the petitioner in the Dresent Wr t Detition cannot be oranted and no Mandamus can be issued aoainst the respondents lrar.ar rndar <arrahi f' r t n el +lra nali+ ,.ll.lar. alttt, b directed to out-forth the itioner's qrievance as Dut- forth in the oresent Writ Petition bv wav of a detailed reoresentation to the resDondents herein a d uoon receiDt of the said representation, the respondents would consider the same in accordance to Iaw, within a reasonable peraod.

9. Learned coun sel aDoearino on behalf of the oetitioner does not disoute the said submission made bv the learned Clrnzlinrr -tt6a:rl.a?rr! 0aC+ h a r.6crr^rrrlatr+ I{os.3 and 4. DISCUS I ON AND CONC USfON:-

10. The Aoex Court in the iud ment reDorted in (2O2O) 1 SCC (L&S) in "Prem Sinoh v State of Uttar Pradesh and others", at oara 5 held as under: / II "36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more shourd have been regurarized. It would not be proper to regulate them for coniideration of regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a reguiar one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they for purpose of pension.,, TII ,, t2

10.04.2006 reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 is extracted hereu nder:- rad ia rr lrarra ia ha rancirlarad "53. One asDect needs to be clarified. There ma be cases where irregular aooointments (not itlegal apoointments) as explained in S.V. Naravanappa f1967 (1) SCR 128'1. R.N. Nanjundaooa t1972 (1) SCC 4O91 and B.N. Naoaraian [1 979 (4) SCC 5O7l and reterre to in oara 15 above, of dulv qualified oersons in dulv sanctioned vacant oosts mioht have been made and the employees have 1r rr+ r, th.rr ri iJra arh Jar ta n rraaa..c arr. rrrara aanlinr interventaon of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The qgestion of reqularization of the services of such arrrnlavaac an rrrar.ilc tn iha liqht of the principles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the lioht of this judoment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regutarize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten y€ars or more in duly rRt nalianad ,rf +ha courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that reoular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctaoned oosts that require to be filled up, an cases where temoorarv emplovees or daitv wagers are beino now emD oved. The Drocess must be set in mo on within six months from this date..... r rnrf ar. -rirr6F < hrrt ^rdarc ,rf n n

13. The iud ment of the ADe Court dated 2O. L2.2024. reported an 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1209 in "Jaqoo Anita and others v Union of India a d others", and th releva nt paraqraph Nos.12, 13, 24, 26, 27 and 28 are extracted here nder: '12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and contanuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, l3 it was recurrent, regutar, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks {u1ing the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.

13. the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy tnat subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional. 24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft :Corporation lg7 F.3d LLBT (9th Cir. 1996)] sdrves as a pertinent Lxample 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 ol 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. ft receive fair treatment. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure l4 appointments adhered to constitutional pi-inciples, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that emplovees in irreoular aopointments, who were engaged in dutv sanctio ed Dosts and ha served continu uslv for more than ten years should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However. the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees. even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the ' judgment's spirit and purpose, effectavely weaponazing it against ncrhla services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positave precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. 28, In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and r all.lar.aA rrrlr;r a I5 the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination 27 .LO.2018 are quashed ; orders dated ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularised forthwith. However, the appellants shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefits/back wages for the services for the said period and the same nnsf- rarnr r lrl arrr r retiral benefits."

14. ,, "15. continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records-despite directions to do .ta"O,,rn.O labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly engagements in circumstances where the work is oermanent in nature. Morally and legallv, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularlv in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall t6 the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court an Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers, rights and job security. In the private sector, th€ rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: .Mi use ol mDorarv" bels: EmD lovees . 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 t7 opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remaln stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. o 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. o 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 Ieft 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 considerations, the Employer,s discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N ofthe U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, L947, and that they J . :.ilg;j:i Li;,!iiJ: I8 l. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputr-'s Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating t.heir services are quashed. In consequen(:e, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% 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. t t9 eDa Tothe ex nt th t san ioned vacan tes

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.,,

15. ThC ADe Cou rna iudo ment reDo n (2OL7)1 I vs aqiit Sinqh ndo ers" t Para s54a nd its sub- d b n "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporafi employees were not enti ed to the minimum of the regular pay_ scale, merely for the reason, that the activities carrTed on 'by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The full bench however, made two exceptions, Temporary employees, who fe ,I:,!!.u: of the-t.wo exceptions, were held entiUe'a b wages at tne minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular emptoyeei. The exceptions recorded by the futt bench of ine Uign Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder: - "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon' fairness and egul.lily of opportunity to all other eligibte candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the reguiar pay scale from the date of engagement. - 20 ! (21 But if daily wagers. ad hoc or contractual ADDO tees are t aoooin aoainst h .rrilh ttstt<lv nahianzl jha Cfrfa Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient lona period i.e. for 7O years, such dailv waaers. ad hoc or contractual aopointees shalt be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scate without any allowances on the assumption that work of perenniat nature is available and havino worked for Deriod of time. an eouita ble oht is created in such category of persons, Their claim for regularization, if any. mav have to be considered separatelv in terms of leoalty permissible scheme. (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and trvo months of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee sha be enti ed to arrears for a period of three years and two months.,,

16. The i udoment of the Aoex Court reo rted in 2O 10(9) 247 n: " k o h r M.L. esari and others", n Darticul ar, Daras 4to9rea ds as u nder:

4. Th eclston in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered on 10.4 .2006 reDorted in 006 G) scc 1). In that se. a tion Bench of this Court held that appointments made Consti without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorptiont regularization or re- engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of [he 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 mentatities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court furthir / /

7. ) 2t held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : n utilhat* "53. One asoect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irredular appointments (not illegal apoointmentsl as exptained in S.V. Naravanappa f7967 (71 SCR 72aL R.N. Naniundaopa t7972 (7t SCC.4O9l and B.N. Nagaraian t7979 (4) SCC 5O4 and referred to in oara 75 above. of dulv qualified persons in dulv sanctioned vacant posts mioht have been made and the employees have continued to intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The ouestion of reoula 'ation of the services of such employees mav have to be considered on merits in th lioht of the orincioles ttled bv this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context. the Union of India. the Stafe Governments and their instrumentalitiei should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly ,lrlr.,ri6}^r, in dulv sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that ular recruitmenb are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled gp, in cases where temoorary emoloyees or daily wagers are being now emoloved. The orocess must be set in motion within six months from this date. .... utha hq ve ltsr )an "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 70 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee shoutd not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or l 22 n utv uDon the continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but h;td been selected witholtt undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. (iii, um devi casts a ncerned reaularize the services of those irregularly aopointed employees who had seryed for more than ten vears w.it,hou the benefit or Drotection of anv interim o ers of courts or tribunals. as a one-time measure. llmadevi, directed that such o measure must e set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 7O.4. 2OOG). 6. The' term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a tist of a casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the interventi()n of cou rts and tribunals and subject them to a process vetrification as to whethc:r 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/casuat employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities ilid not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several entployees from considelration either 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 tn terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely becauset the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of lJmadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider a daity- wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 70.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of cou rts or tribunals. If any .t 23 employer had hetd the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who to the benefit of para 53 of lJmadevi, the employer *ere 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 emptoyees who are entitled to be considered in ierms of Para 53 of l|madevi, are so considered' "niitted rnriEglr{t, g. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in tJmadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat' G"i"il has not considered the cases of respondents of regu1rization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or thereafter. 10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the Zis"s of respondents shoutd be considered in accordance with iii. tn" oniy further direction that needs be given, in view of imadevi, ii tnat the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily 1 24 wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years service do not posses-s the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the tinte of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. L7, V 65, the Supreme Court consadered 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 appetlants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It hetd 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 contractual 25 relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also refused to conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment by the State. It was held that the iudgment in Umadevi \ 26 I

18. The judoment of the Apex Court reported in 2015 SCC Online SC 1797 between "B.Srinivalusu and others v Nellore Municipal Corporation Reo.bv its Commissioner, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh and others", in particular paras 7 and 8 reads as under: (7) We find it difficult to accept the reasoning adopted by the High Court. The right of the appellants to seek regularization G.O. till today. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body i:; obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for ,almost 20 years withoul' regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants.

8. ln 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 Oourt in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (B) SCC 480,

19. In "Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar" reported (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 to ensure security of / 27 emplovment of those Dersons who had served the State Govern ent and thear instrumentali vears". In that This decision aoDroves earlier view exDres se, emDl was wor inq for 29 vears. ies for more than ten M.L.Kesari extracted above.

20. n State of ".Iarkhand v Kamat Pr sad" reoo d tn 7 w k n Suor me Court nd it was eld as follows ndino of fact on the "47.... n vtew of th cateaorical relevant contentious issue that the resDondent emDloyees have continued in their service for more than 70 years le laid dow,nbv conti. uouslv th re. the leoal orinci, k v, red with bv this urt-"

21. The Judgment of this Court dated 06.12-2022 passed in W.P.No.2760.2 ot 2O19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2023 dated

10.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2024 in SLP No.32847 ot 2024. 2u

22. The judoment of the Apex Court in "Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra an Others" in AIR 2020 Suoreme Court 3959 and in reDo a particular o ra Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as 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 duty-bound to exercise such power, where the Governm nt or a oublic authoratv has failed to erctse or has wronqlv exercised discretion conferred uo nitbva statute, or a rule, or a policy decisaon of the Government or has exercised such discretion mata fide, or on irrelevant conside ation.

101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority."

23. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment dated 1O.O6.2O13 passed in W.A.Nos.7g2 ot 2O1O and 854 ot 2OL2 while upholding the Judgment dated O8.O9.201O passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 observed as under:- "Further, it is manifest from the material on record that the service:; of the similarly placed persons who approached the law Courts were regularized. The a ppella nt-Corporation also issued various office orders/circu la rs dated 20.12.1989, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2OO9 for regularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25- T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for such a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of Section 25-T of the t 29 ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respondents are entitled to regularization as directed in the impugned orders, as the learned single Judge considered all the aspects of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals."

24. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment dated 19.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.27217 of 2OL7 reported in 2O18(2)ALD page 282 at para 16 and para 18 observed as under:- "16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in lJma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time absorption/reg ula rization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and'executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning reg u la rization/absorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 100 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, do not whittle down the width and the judgment in Manjula Bashini's case (supra), does not lower the trajectory of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Para 53 of its judgment in Llma Devi's case (supra). It is, therefore, not permissible for the respondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, to deny regularization to the petitioners, who have, admittedly, satisfied the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). l0 (

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.20L7, in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to consider regularisation of the services of the petitioners against the existing vacancies of Work Inspectors and appoint them subject to their satisfying the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). This process must be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

25. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment dated 21.O4.202O passed in I.A.Nos.1 ot 2O2O in 1 of 2Ol9 and W.P.No.23057 of 2019 reported in 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 at paras 45, 48 and para 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. It is not known why the 1st respondent has not followed the decision in Uma Devi's case (supra), as explained in M.L. Kesari's case (supra) and undertaken a one-time exercise of preparing the list of daily wage employees who had worked for more than ten (10) years without the intervention of the Courts and Tribunals as on 10.4.2006 and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess requisite qualifications for the posts, and if so, regularize 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, 76 and 21 oF the Constitution of India; the respondents are directed to regularize on one-time basis petitioners' services from the date each of the petitioners complete 10 years of service on daily wages from the initial dates of their appointment. But, they shall not be entitled to any monetary relief. The said exercise shall be done within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order." 7 3t n titaon rfo req ula ri tion of

26. reo uest oft eDe r h r of Non PHWorker onN MR basis as ularon for al! n r r

27. T n n r P n n r n o h n v n f and extracted above

24. z I \ 32 (' minimum period of 5 vears as on 25.11.1993 since it is the working since 1989 onwards and hence the petitioner had petitioner's case for regularization of petitioner's services ,

29. Takino into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 & 4, , / JJ c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 and 4, in particular, para nos.3 and 4 (referred to and extracted above) d) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: ix2o2o) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) t2O9 (v) (2017) 1 scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC 1797 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2oL4) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2O24 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) z0lt ( 1) ALD , Page 234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O and 854 of 2OL2 while uploading the Judgment dated O8.O9.2O1O passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), i I i I 34 f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated

19.09.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 ot 2OL7 (reterred to and extracted above), g) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23O57 of 201"9 (referred to and extracted above). The Writ Petition is a!!owed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner claim for regularization of petitioner's services an terms of orders passed by the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case reported in 2OO6(4) SCC Page 1 from the date of completion of 1O years of service as followed by this Court in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 dated O8.O9.2O1O reported in 2O11 (1) ALD, Page 234 and as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 10.06.2013, and also as per Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated L9.O9.2O17 passed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2OO7 reported in 2O18(2)ALD page 282 and also the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l ot 2O2O in 1 of 2019 in W.P.No.23O57 ot 2Ot9 in 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 which had attained finalaty, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date 35 of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance to law' in conformitywithprinciplesofnaturaljusticebyproviding an opportunity of personat hearing to the petitioner' duly taking into consideration the observations and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the various judgments referredtoandextractedabove)'andinparticular'para ( and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner' However' there shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous Petitions' if EhY' pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed' SD/-C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANi REGISTRAR 6 /TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble qTS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA (F;;;;laoYsrriPs Kind Perusal) To of reransana 1' 11 LR CoPies' il:il1ff"r-j,.-:; :lJ::[::;;::-,; ffi :::o'"' 2 3. The Secrelqry.' l' 4. +H J.#,ili Syrg?:&Lrr; Illid U D De p a rtm e nt, S e creta ri at B u i I d i ns s' 5 ii:tn::rrru:" ilypd#B,qHl*$,.s,,'. ffi###'ni* $# :i'{*ffi"wnsnmm'* o9\ ****, *;,b?3[ir!-{iiul'try'?i'tr^: Hc ron GHtvlc toPucr 7 irte Deoutv Con u .,0 ?r,,If$3ist3ffift"ffrift,p Fmur.lr.ro,"l11:::"',"', '"7 S*J; 39}*: :: ::::"T. i i.,, ::"::,::'," ls.r,,#n,ns Departm"": srq'" - J HIGH COURT DATED:1 210612025 3 r-l WP.No.14723 o12023 LLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS , ..1: .i l-.q B3 tLCM C) 1, ,: -,rA-Cr.l El)