Sri. E.Venkateswarlu v. The State of Telangana

the petitioner that similarly situated employees, namely Mr. N. Bikshapathy and Md. Fareed, had their services regularized through similar legal proceedings, including O.A.No.6988 of 1996, W.P.No.76029 of 2000, W.P.(TR)No.5110 of 2017, and W.P.No.16414 of 2079, which were decided in favor of the applicants, confirming their entitlement to regularization. The petitioner submitted a representation on 17.03.2022, requesting regularization under G.O.Ms.No.212, but the same was not considered. Aggrieved by the said actron oF the respondents in relecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization, the petitioner had filed the present Writ Petitjon.

4. PERSUED THE RECORD

5. The imouqned order vide RC.No.OP.1- L1L55945312022, dated

08.06.2022 oassed bv resoondent No.2 is racted hereunder: "Sub:- SUITS - W.P.No.20382/2022, filed by Sri E. Venkateswarlu, Part-Time Waterman Cum Gardener, Government Junior College (Girls), lvlahabubabad, Mahabubabad District, Old 6 SN.I \'. l' \o 2a)182 l0l: lVarangal District - for regularisation of servicr::s - t',lot leasible of compliance - Orders - Issued I{eac :-11 Government Memo.No.475/IE.A2/2022, datet) 16/05/2022 2l Hon'ble High Court Orders da ted :'2/t)1/2022 in W.P.No,20382/2022, filed by Sri t.. \'enkateswarlu, Part-Time Waterman C,im (;a r,Jener, GIC (Girls), Mahabubab:d, llah; bubabad District 2l Representation dated 1410312022 of S r E Venkateswarlu, Part-Time Waterrnan C.rm (iarr1:ner, Government -lunior Colleqe ((i I s), I lahabubabad, Mahabubabad District Sri E. Venkateswarlu was engaged as Fart- Time Waterman Cum Gardener at G overnment Junior College (Girls), lvlaherbubabad, Mahabubabad District with effect from 28101/ L9A6. The individual filed W.P.No.2O3B2/2O22 in Hon'ble High Court oF Telangana, Hyderabad ard p -ayed for regularisation of his services in terrns o' C-.O,lv1s.No.2l2, Finance, dated 22.04.19t)4. T re l-'1on'ble High Court in its interim orde,rs d tled 22/04/2022 has directed the rcspondc^l to 7 SN,J WP N0.203E2 2022 consider the representation of the petitioner dated 74/03/2022 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy.of this order. The Government have formulated a scheme for regularisation of part-Time employees in G.O,Ms.No.112, G.A.D., dated 23.O7.1997 rhar those who had worked conttnuously for a minimum service of ten ( 10) years in a sanctioned vacancy and must be continuing as on 25.11.1993, subject to fulfilment of certain conditions stipulated therein. Since the incumbent was appointed as part-Time employee on 14/77/L986 and not completed the requisite 10 years of service as on 25.11.1993 as part- Time Contingent, he is not eligible for regularisation of his services in terms of G.O. Ms. No.112, General Administration Department, dated 23 07.1997. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgement dated 06.07.2009 in Civil Appeal No.3702l2006 and batch (ManjutaBhashin case) has issued orders that ',the daily wage employees and others who are covered by Section 7 of the 1994 Act (amended) and whose services have not been regularized so Far, shall be entitled to be considered for regularization and their services shall be regularized subject to ....-.'.-. 8 SN'J \\ l' .Jo.20382 2022 tu lf llrr ent of the conditions enumerated in daled 22.04.1994 With a vieYJ to G O.212, o')viate further litigation on this issue' !ve dlri'ct tf e (;overnment of Andhra Pradesh, irs OffLr'e rs a rcj . gencies/ instrumentalities oF the Statc to c )rnt) etc the exercise for regularizatlon oi lre s.lrv (es of eligible employees within Four Tno ths o' th{l receipt/production of copy of this ord:r' u, ithlut being influenced by the fact that the appl (.ation, writ petition or appeal filed by any sJcl- employee may have been dismissed by the Jribunal or High court or this Court' Since sotne cF th(r appeal decided by this order relate to Part- I ime employees, we direct that similar exercise t e u ndertaken in their cases and complel'ed \,/itf i1 Four months keeping in view 1:he ( ond tions enumerated in G'O'(P)No 1l2' <latci 23.07 .1997 . Siri E. Venkateswarlu was engaged as l)art-Time Waterman Cum Gardener at r!ov,3rnment Junior College (G irls)' '!4ahabubabad, Mahabubabad District on z8/O:IlLg86. Hence, he has not complelted 10 '/ears of service as on 25111/t993 for regularisation of services as G.O Ms.No'112, G.A'D., dated 23'07'1997' fherefore, his request for regularisation of 9 SN,J wP No.20182 2022 his services in terms of Finance, dated 22.O4.L994 and hence rejected," G.O.Ms.No.212. is not feasible

6. res Do n The coun ter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of dents, and in oarticular, oaraqrao h Nos.6, 7 and 8 of th said cou nter-affidav it are extr cted here u nd er: "6. It is submitted that, the petitioner was engaged as Part-Time Contingent Waterman Cum Gardener at Government Junior College for Girls, Mahabubabad on 27/01/1986 Since he is a Part-Tim e EmDlovee, his case does not comes under the preview of G.O.Ms.N .2L2, Finan ce and Pl nnino De a rtmen t. ated: 22.O4 .1994. Fu her, the P itioner h s not comD leted 10 vears of servace ason 25 lL /L993 for reo ula risation of se !ces as Der G.O.Ms.No.1 12, G.A D 23.07.t997. r

7. It is further submitted that, the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad in its lnterim orders dated 22/04/2022 in w .P.No.2038212022 fited by sri Ven ka teswa rlu, Part-Time Waterman Cum Gardener, Government Junior College (Girls), E. + i0 ,\,I :\.r ts.. lrlll I'laha bubabad, Mahabubabad District nr; de tre following o rd er: 'Hence, there shalt be interim direction to respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated ) 4/03/2022". tl, It is submitted that, accordingly his case !/as :onsidered and rejected vide this Proceeding trc.N).OP1-U1559453/2022 dt 08.06.2022, since, the petitioner is a Part-Time Employee, his cast: does not come under the purr ew of (;.O, \,1s.No.212, Finance and P ar ring t)ep. rtment, dated 22.04.L994 Further, 'he t'etit oner has not completed 10 years of ser-r ice ; s rrr 25l1 ll1993 for regularisation of ser',ri:es .Ls per G,O.ttls.No.112, G,A.D., Ca:ed :'.3.07 .1997 , as the said petitioner is only :he f)art. (:ase was rejected. " time employee. Hence 7 The Judqment of the Aoex Court dated 3n .ot.202s reoorterl in 2025 r SC 144 in "SHRIPAL AN D ANO THER v. NA AR I paraNoSJ=@ AZt r the releva nt '1 5. It is contin uously manifest that the Appellant Workmen rendered their services over sev(lral years, a SN,J \,!'l' No 20JE2 2022 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 so-allows an adverse inference under well-esta blished labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following pa ra g ra phs: "22, The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contractsi as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements/ oFten characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been critjcized 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 govern mental operations. t2 SN,J Wl' No.20382 2022

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary 3mployees, particularly in government irlstitutions' ,ft"n iu." multifaceted forms of exp oitar:ion' While tre foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seascnal needs' t-Tey have increasingly become a mechanit'm lo 2024 S Ci OnLine SC 3826 evade long-terrrr oblrgations cwed to employees These practices -ranifest in several ways: . l,lisuse of "Temporary" Labels: Emp ove")s engaged f:r work that is essential, recurring, anC integral to the functioninq of an institution arc often abclled as "temporary" or "contractual," even \'\ hen their roles rnirror those oF regular emplol'ees Such rnisclassification deprives workers of t'te dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are r:ntitled to, despite performing identical ta''ks' , Arbitrary Termination: Temporary enrployees are frequently dismissed without cause or notlce, as seen in ihe present case. This practice undermines the I)rinciples of natural justice and subjects \\'orkers to a i;tate of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. ' Lack of Career l)rogression: Temporary employees cfte-n find t:heirselves excluded from opportunities for skill (levelopment, promotions, or incremental pay raises' -f.hey remain stagnant in their roles. creating a r;ystemic disparity between them and their regular ,rounterparts, despite their contributions being ,:q ua lly significant. . Using Outsourcinq as a Shie d: Institutions ncreasingly resort to outsourcrnq rolcs :':rformed by ,emporary employees, effectrvely r eplac ng one set rf exploited workers with another' This i)ractice not :nly perpetuates exploitatloil but a so 'i(rmonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the ob igat on to offer 'egular employment. l3 SN.J wP No.203EZ 20Zz . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental O6nefits such as. pension, provident fund, health insurarce, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security srOiects liem and their families to undue hardship, especialiy in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circu msta nces. "

16. The High Court djd acknowledge the Employer,s inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequen y, It ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minirnum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precarjousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record. L7. In light of these considerations, the Employer,s discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering ro Sections 6E and 6N of the U,p. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were engaged in essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be relegated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideratton, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of stalutory obligations or negate equitable l1 s-n I .! \, )lr iiil 'rrll ent tle-Irents. Indeed, bureaucratic Iimitat or s cannot tru,np t he legitimate rights of workmen who hz ve served cortinrlusly in de facto regular roles fot an extended pe r iod 18, Thr: impugned order of the High Court, to the extent they ccnfine the Appellant Workmen to future daily-wage en! agement without continuity or meaningful back wages, is l- ereby set aside with the following directions: .. The discontinuation of the Appellant ',4/orkmen's :;r:rvices, eFfected without compliance rvith Section 6E i: rd Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, L)47, is declared illegal. All orders or r:rrmmunications terminating their ser';ices are 11'lashed. In consequence, the Appe lant Workmen :;hall be treated as continuing in servir:e from the ri ate of their terminatiorr, for all purposes, including ';,:"ioriLY and conLinulty in service. . L The Respondent Employer sha L re'trtst.:te the ,\ppellant 'A'orkmen in their respective posts (o, po;ts 3kin to llre duties they previously performeC) vrithin four ,reeks from the date of this judgment. Trelr entire 1r:riod of absence (from the date cf tern'ination until a:tual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity O' service and all consequentlal benefits, such as :;r:niority and eligibility For promotions, if arry. i1l. Considering the length of service, the Appellant rl/orkmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their a:tual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. t5 SN.J wl'No.20162 2022 IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a farr and transparent process for regularizing the Appellant Workmen within six months from the date oF reinstatement, duly considering the fact that they have performed perennial municipal duties akin. to permanent posts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were never applied to the Appellant Workmen or to similarly situated regular employees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms.

19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed."

8. The iudoment of the A oex Court dated 20.12,2024, reDorted in 20 24LawSuit SC) 1209 in Jaooo Anita and others v. Union of India and others, and the relevant ara ra h Nos.12 13 24 26 27 and 2 r ( hereunder: "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 t6 SN,,I \\/P \L 20182 2022 spo radic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the resp,ons ibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. 13. th es €r the res ond nts ha eno r os s a ksm e rit tureoft hework perfo rm ed bv the swa s DE ren n ial an d fun dam ntal \^/(:r e n The h to ttre _fun ctron n recurr ng nature oF these duties necessitates their class fication as regular posts. irrespective of ho\^ their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsou-cinct of these same tasks private agencie s after the appellants, termination demons;trates the inherent need for these service:;. Ihis act of outsourcing, which effectivrlty replaced one set of workers wilh another further underscores that the work in QueStirlr rva; neither temporary nor occas jonal .to

24. State ir, the case of Vizcaino Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 fgrh Tht: 13pi6n3;1a judgement of lhe Un jted v M icrosoft Cir. r gq6\r / T7 SN,J wP No.20182 2022 serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of m isclassiFying 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 Circult 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 hiohliqhts role in rectifvino such the iudiciarv's m isc la ss ifica tion s and ensurinq that workers receiv fa ir treatment.

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure apporntments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its i \ , l8 !r r\. lr)l8l l0l l SN.J lr inc f)les are often misinterpreted or m saDpli':d :c de,ny legitimate claims of long scr,/ng ,:rrplr),eres. This judgment aimed to d strrg,- s -'r br t,,vrl:n "illegal" and "irregular" appo ntmc.fl . It cateqoricallv held that em plovees irr irreqLrlar aooointments. who were enoaqer! tn dulv sanctioned Dosts and had served cc ntin uouslv for more tha n ten vea ris be considered for reoula rization as a one-time measure, However , the la uda b 1,3 intent of the judgment is being subverted wherr in:;titu,:ions rely on its dicta to indiscrim inately re ect the claims of employees, even in case:; \,v t ere their appointments are not illegal, but mr:rely lack adherence to procedural forma ities. Gcvernment departments often cite th,: ju(jgnr,lnt in Uma Devi (supra) to argue th:t r,r Ve;te,l rtght to regularizatiOn extsts io' tern por-a ry employees, overlooking :-.,o j!(ignrrrnt s explicit acknowledgrnent of casr.:,; v/l^er€ regularization is appropriate. This; aDplication disto se iect ive the: iqrlom ent's soirit and D urDose, effectivel nizinq it aqainst emplovees whc have rendered indisoensabl e servrces over de ca des, t9 S N,J WP No.20382 2022

27. In light of these considerations, in our it is imperative for government op in io n, 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 fa ir employment practices, government , institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to 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 the original application is allowed to the following extent: l ,\ , \i_r llilsl I \\ l(lll i, The termination 2 t.lO.2OlB are quashed; orders dated ll. Th I ts ha k nb ck t rr:qul ar a pDe il nts h h h ith I h n t !r I w en it t a rV ben efits /ba ck waq esf or the pecu nl p e ric,d he hav no wo rked for ut wou ld !e er-rtitled to continuitv of services for !|te e would be cou ntt:d said p e riod and the sa t or-Ure ir oost - retiral be n ef its.'i

9. Th,:.4lex Court in a Iu dqment rep Supremr: cc) rt e l4 tn a tat of Pun a orted in (20 17) 1 and others vs Ja oIl s q h an d others atP ras 54 an d its ub- aras "54 "The Futt Bench of the High Court' while 'tdjudicating upon tle above controversy had concluded' that temporary ii ptotees were not entitled to the minimum of the iegular paY' lrr-1"-, ,n"r"ly for thi reason, that the activities carried on by ly'-rrrg"r' und regular employe-es were similar' The full bench i ho uev.( r, made twi exceptions. Temporary employercs, who fell. in eitht|r of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the mitlimum of tne p'ay-scale drawn by r-egular employees' The ix:ep:ions recorded'by the full b9.nch of the High tourt in the iituEr ed judSment are extracted hereunder:- ' ( 1) A daily wager, ad hoc .or contractue'l appointee uqainst the reguiar sanctioned posts', if app'ointed after. ttndergoing a ielection process based upon fairness and ,:quality if opportunity to all other eligibte candida.tes' :;halt be entitted to minimum of the regular p;:y scale from 'he date of enqaqement' ) 2t SN,J WP No.20382 2022 (2) But if daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees are not appointed against regular sanctioned posts and their services are avalled con.tinuously, with notional breaks, by the Sfafe Government or its tnstrumentalities for a sufficient long period i.e. for 10 years, such d;ily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees shall be entitled to minimum of the regular paY scale without anY allowances on the assumption that work of perennial nature is available and having worked for such long period of time, an equitable right is created in such category of persons. Their claim for regularization, if any, may have to be considered separately in terms of legally permissible scheme, (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 70 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."

10. The iudqme nt of the Aoex Court reoorted in 2o10(9) SCC 247 between: State Karnataka and others v M. L, Kesa ri and others, in oa rticular. Daras 4 to 9 reads as under:

4. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevr was rendered 2006 (4) SCC 1). In that case. a n 10.4.2006 (reDorted in o Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointrrlent did not confer any right on the appointees and caurts cannot dtrect their absorption, regularization or re- engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constttution should not ordrnarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further I 22 SN,J Y. P No.20182 2022 heti that a temporary, contractual/ casual ar a dally_wage em)lcyee does not have a legal rig'ht to ie inaoe permanent un,t,1ss I e had been appointed in teris of thc-re e,.,,, t rutes or in aLll e.e'. t, ai Artictes tJ and Ib ot the Const,._. - t^.< tautt h,t: ,er,, nade one et to the abave L'as tt )n and the sitnte i:; e.ytracted ou,orf?o''on ':-3 One aspect needs to be clanfied. The-c :jty be cases sv\ere irreqular app_ointments (not il,ei:g) appointments) zs explained in S.V. Na_rayanappa I lSi67 1, i sCA lZA1, :'N Nantundappa. [1972 f ii sCi-'qd:,; and B.u. Ii979 (4) SCC 50)] ura iJurrJJ ta in para i5 ^t.tgarajan at.ove, of duly qualified p"rroi, in Aii,,unrt o,ed vacant pcsts might have been made and tie ei;:tc,yees have colttnued to work .for ten years o, _ore-O,rt t./ithout the rntervention of orders of ihe courts ir'ol"trib Lnars. The q.Jestion of regularization of the ,iruir", of such T.ntployges may have to be considereJ on merits in the lier,-tt of the principte.s settted bi t;;;Ziri ,, the cases abt)vereferred to and in the tighi of tnii jiOinent. In that context, the union..of t1dia,ihe staii'ciiurrrnents and t h e i r i n s tru m e n ta t i t i e s s.h o u id i"i; ;;;; r;" ;. s u ia ri ze a s a ane-time measure, the services 5i';r,; irregutarly appointed, who haue worked fo.r ten yea i-olr mcre in aury sanctioned posts but.not under covir oi orAers of tne courts or of tribunals and shoutd iurthiei'en.;ure tnat req Llar recruitments are unaertiki, tr' ;ij tho:;e vacant sa,lctioned posts that .require to Oe iitii Lp, in cases wht're temporary ..:l!_Lu "ia"iv"*Zi"is are being nor employed. The process must be set ii mottcn within si.\ ,-nanths from this date. .. .. "5. ;t is evident from th9 above that there is ar. (,xception to tht ge,eral principtes against 'ngutur;:uiio"nl enr.ctated tn Umed )vi, tf the follawing condltions un fifit.a : ' (i) Tht, e.-tcloyee concerned should have worked ior.!,,.) years or :o^rr, _ " d i , sa.ncttoned post without tne benei,,t c'r t.,_,i:cllon of ttle tn s 1' < r ser o[ anv .ourt or lribunai. f] ou,. .... .o, the State joverrtment or iis instrumentality snoutJ'n)ue enployed the erlplo/ee and continued him in'ser,ti" continL,ou:;ty for more than ten years. (ii) fh t a,cDointment of such employee should not oe iltegal, even i' trn:gutar. where the uppoiiti"itJ-uiu"iL, ,rro" o, 'rl,rn:u.ity ( SN,J WP No.20382 2022 continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications. the appointments will be considered to be illegat. 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 setection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. (iii) Umadevi casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instru menta lity, to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi, directed that such one-ttme measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its dectsion (rendered on 10.4.2006). 6. Thc term 'one-time measure' has to be understood tn its ptopet perspective. This would normally mean that after the dectsion in Umadevi, each department or each tnstrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a ltst of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been workrng 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/casua I employees were still pending before Coults. Consequently, several departments and instru menta lities did not commence the one- time 'regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instru mentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration 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 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 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any \\\\ 24 SN..I ,\ , \,r li).lsl l0ll em)laye r had held the one-time exercise in terns oi para 53 of lJ,n)devi, but did not consider the cases of some enJ loyees who wete e-t:itled to the benefit of para 53 of lJmadeti, the employer con,ern':d should consrder their cases al5o, as a continuation of the one'time exercise. The one time exercise will bt) concluded onl , vr\en all the employees who are entitled ta be considerdd in t?rns of Para 53 of umadevi, are so considered,

8. -''he c,bject behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is two- fotd. First is to ensure that those who have F.ut in more thal terl years of continuous service without the protection of any int<:rim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in umadevi was rendered, are considered for reg )lari;,ation in view of their long service. Second t9 to ensure tha- tl''e depa rtments/ instru me nta lities do not pert)etuate the pra:tice of employing persons on da ily-wage/a d - hoc-/ ca sua I for lonq pe,r iods and then periodically regularize them on the ground tha tn=y have serted for more than ten yea's, therebY defeati,lg the constitutional or statutory provisior's relating to rec'uiitr ent and appointment. The true effect of the directton is tha al ,:ersons who have worked for more than tcn ,/ears as on 10.1.20)6 (the date of decision in Umade\'1) "ithcut the pra-eclton oi any intertm order of anY court r: lribunal, in vacinl: Dasts, possesstng the requistte qualt:tcatlor'. )re eniitled to )e .onsidered for reqularization. The iact th-1t 't e employer has nct undertaken such exercise of regLttarizetior within six n'o 1th:; of the decisian tn Umadevi or that sur.h e.':ercise was uncett:a.<en only in regard to a limited few, will '-('t dtsentitle suc\ ettployees, the right to be considered fa-ecu arization in tenns of the above directions in Umadevt as.) one-time n1e lsu -o.

9. -hes'= appeals have been pending for more than four years afftr t,\z decision in Umadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat, Gartag, has not considered the cases of respondents of reg )lari..ation within six months of the decision in Umadevi or the'eafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High Couft has directed that the cas=s or respondents should be considered in accordance with law Tlte only further direction that needs be given. in view of lJm ev i, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now uncerta,t<e an exercise within six months, a generai one- time reg )tari..ation exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wat,e/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panc'\ayat and if 1 25 SN,.J wP No 20.t82 2022 so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requitements mentioned i, pura si oi um,ii5iii.' r ,n"y frtfitt them, thetr services have to be regutarized. i-irrn an exercise has atready been undertaken ry ijniriij ir'L.iir,'rg the cases of r espondents I ta 3 because ofin" pinJ"iy o"f"rn"r. ,ur."r, ,,1:_r-!1.",: ,"?gs shail have to be considered in continuation of Lt lc 5dto one ttme exercise within three months- It is needless to say tha_t if the respondents do not fulfill lni ,iqliru_"nrc of Para S3 of L./madevi, their services n"ea nii Oe-iJgubrised. If the employees who have completed t"n y:"uii ,J*ice do not possess the educationat oualifications pr"rtriiui iir'the post, at tle tine of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.

11. I u e of h u n h h d v P n b o1 n 1 appellants were paid by s c 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 the Bank did not render the 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 sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authority of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractuat 'employees' 26 SN,J Wt No.20182 2022 re wer the defence t relations hip, its action is arbitrary' It a lso refused to nc ton ed posts e was iustifi ca tio n for the State l:o utilis and so se rvices of larqe number of people like the appellants for ostsd o not fall from t "sa nctio ned de cades lq held tha the State has to create them bva f som e rationa I a ssessment -a 4d that ce on the basrs heaven " consclot !s--c-l10r jlDpellants of need.-B-qf errin o to Umadevi thetn w re n hr:ir initial bee m ade tn before a oooi nttn e n twa s not a n 'irreqular' aDpointment as it had accord ance with the stat utory D roced ure Act, 1861, and the S ate prescrib ed un cannot be heard to sav that thev are not entitled to be erma nent er the Polic s d into hes a bsorbe t nts w re r tn basis a:;, at temoor;Uy-and not aoainst anv sanctioned post:s created bv the Stal:e. It was held that the iudoment in Umadevi cannot bsc.'rme a licence for exoloitation bv the State and Gov r n ment of ies and neith r th its insl:ru nrentali Puniab no1 those oublic sector Banks can contin ue such a ( I I 27 SN.J WP No.20182 2022 DT actice inconsisten t with thei r obliqation to function in accordance with the Constitution.

12. The iudoment of the Aoex Court re Dorted in 2015 SCC Online SC 1797 between B.Srinivalusu and others v N e il ore Munici D al Co r DO I Re n .b its C mmr o ssloner, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh and others, in oarticular oa ra s 7 and 8 reads as under: h (/) @e find it difficu![ ta acceBt lLe reA5oAt,,]g adeple! by the Caurt. The right of lhe appqU17ts lo gee! reoularizalp1t Htgh from the G.o. No.212 dated 22.4.1994. The a flow s opellant bnve been in service of the first resDondent not onlv Drior to the issuance of t e said G.O. but even subseo uent to the issue of G.O. till todav. The re spondent 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. 8. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' 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/Cha irpe rson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 480.

13. In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar reported (2015) I 265 the Su reme Cou held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularisation of such appointment, which are irregular \\ I t , \1. rrr:!l lltlj but not illeg al, and to ensure appointments, w hich are irregular but not illegal, and to en ure ecuritv of employment of t r n who had served the State Governm ent and their instru menta lities for more than ten vears". I This der:ision aooroves earlie r view exoressed in 9 vears. M.L.Kesari extracted above. L4. In !;tate of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasad reDorted in (20L4'.) :, SCC 223, similar view was taken bv the Suoreme Court and it was held as follows : "41. In view of the categorical finding of fact an t,1 : teievant contcnti) ts issue that the respandent ernclt:,,,,.e s have ia their service for more than 1A '/eats .a.tt1Lta[!sly contt,|-/€c thertfcr,=. the legal principle laid down by thi,-; C;:,t': ,' ijnedevi case (51)te of Karnataka v IJmadevi (2006) 1-SC( ,' 2Iltr6 .SCC (L&S) 7-]. at para 53 squarely appltes to the prescn[ c,;ses. Ihe Divis'o. 9ench of the High Court has rightly he'd that the resp()nde1t employees are entitled for the r.liea, 'hc same cann)t tc interfered with bv thrs Caurt."

15. A barre erusal of the observa ions of the Apex Court rn varrou dqments referred to and extracte clea rlv irrdicate that the claim of the Detitioners for req u larization has to be necessari lv considered in view of the fact h t the co ceDt of one time measure as exolained at Daras 6 to 1O of the ) ud o ment of the ADex I { l() ^-,.t tl P N(r.2ti3: 2022 s Cou in Sta e of Karn V M.L.K ari whi h in cle I ici t r s tim ex c d ll th em lo to be co nsid red n terms of Da ra 53ofUm Devi are so w r D a e r 5 h o t r r vacant Dosts a nd reqularis e the servi es of those enoa oed f rm e h ua li ed 1 a tim m e tion of AD vi' s held at pa ra '5' of th e decision of th eSu preme ourt ln erv ton e Karna a an oth SV M,L. esari and that Uma Devi casts a dutv u Gov rnm nt n str DO co ncer n d o e r ula rize th servrces r rr a emDlove es who had with out the benefit or Drote tion of anv terim order of Co rts or Tri bu als as aon -time m easure has not been ed for than t d nve ars n s u th r it Sin Cou r ns 4 fP b o w h has 30 SN,J $ P No 20182 2022 said thart a leoaltv Dermissible scheme has to be framedin respect of daitv waoers, adhoc or contractual a pDol ntees who ar(: not appointed aoainst sanctioned Dosts, but their se rv ic e !i-A-L,.- availed continu .breaks bv its instrumenta litv for a the St.ate G ernment or sufficie 1t l! )nq Der iod i.e., for ten vears. L6. Learn,ed counsel appearing on behali of the petitioner, specifically placing relying on the averments made irr the affidavit filed in support of the petition, in particular paragraph Nos.7 to 11, contended that under similar circumstances, part-time contingent emllloyees at Mothkur Government Junior College, against the sanctio red vacancies, approached this Clourt for regularrzation of their services as per G.O.Ms.Ntt.212. The cases of .the contingent employees at Mothkur Govern rrert Junior College, namely N. Bikshapathy and Md. Fareed were considered, and their services were regutarized. In fact, the Tribunal, in its order in O.A.No.6988 of 1996 filed by N' Bikshapathy and Md. Fareed, dai:ed 14.09.1999, very clearly observe,J that the applica 1ts thereunder had put in more than fiv,a years of I / l\- 3l SN,J WP No.20382_2022 service and were in continuous service in the organization as on the cut-off date fixed in G.O.Ms.No.212. Therefore, it cannot be said that the two ingredients which are required for regurarization of services had not been satisfied and that the minimum service of five years and arso the said appricants working on the cut_off date fixed in G.O.Ms.No.212 had been satisfied. Therefore, the Tribunal a owed the O.A. in favour of the said applicants, clearly observing that the applicants thereunder are entitled to regutarization of services and also periodical increments. The said judgment in the case of the appricants, N' Bikshapathy and Md. Fareecr had been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide Judgment dated 19.O7.2010 in W.p.No.l6029 of 2OOO, and the proceedings had been issued regularizing the services of the said contingent employees. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to similar relief, and the impugned order dated O9.06.2022 rejecting the petitioner,s case is without application of mind, passed in a mechanicat manner, intended only to deny the relief as prayed for by the petitioner herein. L T, 32 SN 1 n I \.21)182 l02l L7. L€larnec Assistant Government Pleader Ftlr l;crvices-l' appearil( .ir behalF of the respondents, placlng r3l 'lr ce on the avermenlsr'radeinthecounter-affidavitfiledonb':lalfofthe responclelts, does not dispute that the relief had Deen extended to othe' ;irriarly situated persons like the petitiorer 'vorking in Mothkur lo\'(lrnment Junior College, Nalgonda District However, contencls that the said persons had approached the Tribunal, whereas :he letitioner did not approach the Tribunal, and did not obtain ar y favourable orders from the Tribunal, as was obtained by the said lrl. Bikshapathy and Md. Fareed'

18. Le; rnerl Assistant Government Pleader for llervices-1, appearin I or' behalf of the respondents, placing reliarce on the avermen:s ,rade in paragraph Nos.6, 7 and B cf th3 counter- affidavit flle:r1 on behalf of the respondents (referr:d to and extract3(i alcve), contends that the Writ Peiitlor xr'eds to be dismisse l,

19. Th s (lourt opines that the impugned orieT d ated c,l n tra ry to 08.06.2C22 passed by the respondent No.2 ls G.O.Ms.tJo..212, dated 22.04.1994. The impugned o-der dated

08.06.2C22 issued by the 2nd respondent and the counter i \ I )) SN,I $'l' No.20.182 2022 affidavit filed by the respondents refers to two specific reasons denying the request of the petitioner For regularization and absorption of the services oF the petitioner in the post. of Waterman cum Gardener/Attender at respondent No.3 college by extending the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.2tZ, dated 22.04.1994 on par with similarly situated persons who got regularized under similar circumstances, which are enlisted below: (a) the petitioner is a part_time employee, (b) the case of the petitioner does not come under the purview of G.O.Ms.No,2i2 Finance and planning (FW.PC.ilt) Departmenr, dated 22.04.1gg4, since the petitioner had not completed ten years of servtce aS on 25.11.1993 for regularization oF the petitioner,s services as per G.O.Ms.No.lI2, G.A.D., dated 23.07.1997.

20. A bare perusal of G.O.Ms.No.2t2, dated 22.O4.Igg4, clearly indicates that the cases of persons appointed on a Daily Wage basis/NMRs or on Consolidated pay, and who continued in service as on the date of commencement of the Act, such persons who worked continuously for a minimum period of Five years of service and are continuing in service as on 25.11.1993 34 s\.I r\ l, \. 2ar8t 20ll be regulari :ed by appointing authorities subject to fulfi ment of certain sPe :ifi( conditions

21. This Cou-t opines that the impugned proceedings dated OB.06.202rar()notonlycontrarytotheviewoftheAp':xCourt in the vari lus ludgments referred to and extracted abcve' but also contrary 'o G.O.Ms.No .212, daled 22'04'7994' which clearly provides 'oT the regularization and absorption rlf Daily Wage/Nl'1F or (lonsolidated pay employees'

22. It is pertinent to refer the ludgment of thrs Court dated 06. 12J.1022 passed in W'P'No'27602 of 2019 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri l*akshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadagirigutta' Nalgonda District, rvhi<:h had been upheld by the Division Eiench of this Court in W'A.No.937 of 2023 dated 1O'1O'2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex court dated O9.O8.20:14 irr SLP No.32847 ol 2024'

23. Tak nq into con sidera tio n: (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case' 35 SN,J wP No.20tE2 2022 (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government pleader for Services_I, appearing on behalf of the respondents, (c) The averments made in the cou nter_aff idavit filed on behalf of the respondents and in particular paragraph Nos,6, 7 and g (referred to and extracted above), (d) The observations of the Apex Court reported in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above), as enlisted below: (i) 2O2s rNsc 144 (ii] 2o24 LawSuit(sc) 12oe (iii) (2017) 1 SCC 148 (iv) 2010(e)scc247 (v) (2013) 14 Scc 6s (vi) 2O15 SCC Ontine SC ttgT (vii) (2o1s) I sCc 26s (viii) (201a) 7 Scc 223 (ix) Judgment of this Court dated 06.tZ.2OZz passed in W.p.No.276O2 of 2019 which had been upheld by Division Bench of this iourt in wA No.937 0f 2023 dated 10.10.2023 ano atso confirmed by the order of npex Couri dateO 09.08.2024 in SLp No.328ai of 2024. (e) The bounden duty on the Judiciary to rectify misclassifications and ensure that all workers receive fair 36 SN,J \\P io 20182 2022 treatment \e ithout being discriminated duly tak ing into consider;rtio'r the indispensable services rendered bV the petitioner over three decades continuously since 1986' (f) The fa<:t, as borne on record' that the relief lrad been extende(l to similarly situated persons like the petitioner' who w')rk(:d as contingent employees at Mothkur District' The orders Governntenl Junior College, Nalgonda of 2OL',1 , dated of this Court in W'P'(TR)No'5110 10.08.2018, W'P.No'1641 4 of 2OL9' dated 02'08' 2019' the qvdgl fl;rtecl 14.09'1999 passed in O'A'No'6988 of 1996' andtheorclerdatedlg.oT.2olopassedinW.P'No.15o29 of 2000 proceec lng s

08.06.2022 is This Writ Petition is allowed' The impugned vide Rc.No.OP.1-L/1559453/2O?.2' dated set-aside. The respondents are directed to request of the petitioner for regttlarization reconsile|. the of the petitioner's services in terms of G'O'lt'ls'N o'2!2' Financt: arrd Planning (FW'PC'III) Department' dated 22,O4.1992t, who is presently working as a part-time Waternran cum Gardener, at Government Junir>r college' I / )/ SN,J WP No.20182 2022 (Girls), Mahabubabad, with effect from the date of the petitioner's initial appointment i.e., 27.O1.L9g6, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance to law, duly considering the observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above), in conformity of principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders, and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitrons, if any pending, in i the Writ Petition shall also stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.A. SRINIVASA ASSISTANT REGI DDY TRAR SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble MRS.JUSTTCE SUREPALLI NANDA (For His Lordships Kind perusal) To,

1. The PrincipqLSecretary, Higher Education ( l.E.l) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana.

2. The Commissioner, lntermediate Education Vidhyabhavan, Abids South, Nampaily, H yd era bad, Telangana.

3. The Prinicipal, Government Junror college ( Girls), Mahabubabad, l\,4ahabubabad Distnct, Old Warangal Distriit. -1 ltLKt,ontes 5 The Under S€cretary, Union of India, Ministry of Lav/, Justice and Company Affa irs, New Delhr. 6 Tlre Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High Courl Build ings, Hyderabad. - 7 One CC to SRl. JURISPATH Advocate IOPUCI I 8 Two CC; to GP FOR SERVICES t ,High Court for the State of Telangana Two CD Copies o VVA LS HIGH COURT DATED: Yrc412025 I ORDER WP.No.203B2 of 2022 ( q 5 $E ST 1 L I I iri:t 2[25 *-. :S-lsi ' rrl$ t. ' i,] r)I * ALLOWII!G THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C:OSTS zZ 4/\ </ ,/1 -,