Marepalli Mozes v. 1. The State of Telangana

Order

Heard Sri P. R. Bharath Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The oeti toner aol, roa ched this Court seekino oraver as under: ".-..fo /ssue writ or order more particularly one in nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS and direct the Respondents to absorb and regularise petitioner's seruices as Office subordinate as per G.O.Ms.No.212 by fixing pay as per Revised pay scates 2015 including DA, Arrears of salary with consequential and attendant benefits, violative of Articles 14 and 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass .."

3. The case of the Det tioner in briefas er the D mad in the affid v! itioner i suoDo rt of the oresent WritP ton as as under:- (i) The petitioner joined as part time sweeper on 24.03.1986 on consolidate pay of Rs.75-00. The petitioner and one B.Laxmi contingent employees were converted into full time contingent employees as per proceedings No.SE/CCH/ES/ES/1302, dated 4 SN..I \V I .No.20653 2022

23.07.2007, and proceedings No.EElDivn.Na.ltAB/ESIlEC4, dated 25.07.2007 respectively and have complet,: j 36 years of service from date of petitioner's initial appointrr( nt as on the date of the filing of the present writ petition. (ii) It is the snecific etitio ner that in the DroDosal vide Lr.No.SE/CCH/ES dated 11.O9.2012 forwarded bv Res lE3lwclN I'lRsl2L3ll2, oondr nt No.5 o Res ent No.2 for reo u la rization of servic sof NMRs/Dail Wa oesl Part Time^/Full Time _ Continqent Emolovees, the oetitioner's name was showrr at Sl.N o.1 in roforma list. The Detataoner reoresentataons to the Soecial Chief S; )creta submitte d L7, 3L.O7.20L7 reo ula rization of oetitioner's Subordinate in existino vacan cv with rr rster

07.10.20'.7 servrces as Office 7-SC(w) in G.v. Circle No.IV Karim I aqar, as Der

G.O.Ms. No.212. dated 22 o4.L994. b fixi n,r Dav as Der Revised oav scales 2O 15 includinq DA, Arrri rrs of salarv with consequ€ntial and attendant benefits. ! lowever, the resoondents had not considered t e case of I re oeti ioner, :l even thouoh the oetiti oner comolete more t ran 10 vears 5 SN,J W.P.No.20653 2022 of serv ce as rl A(70 rrevedb v the t h Detitioner o erred th is writ oetition.

4. PE USED T ORD: (A) The Lr.No. sElccHt EStE3t WC/NMRs/ 2t3tt2. Droceedinqs

11.O9.2(J12 of the 5th re oonden t to resDondent No.2 herern r extrac here under: .OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, I & CADD, CONSTRUCTION CIRCLE, K.C.COLONY, HANAMKONDA" Lr. No. SE/CCIV ES/E3/WC/NM Rs/2 1 3L/2. Dat d: 1 L.O9.20t2. Sub: Work Charged Estt-Act-2/1994 Regulation of Services of NMRs/Daily Wages/part Time / Full Time Contingent Employees- Eligible pending Cases-Consolidated List - Report Submitted- Regarding. Ref: 1- ENC (l.W) Hyd. Memo No. ENC/W/p&M/EE- rrl/w u 67 / 20 1 2, Dated S -O4 -20 L2

2. ENC (1.W) Hyd. Memo No. ENC/IWP&M/EE- lll / W 2/ 67 / 20 L2, Dti}g -04-2012 communicated to this office vide ACE's Endt. No.SRSp/LMD/ A2/ 224/ 2012. Dated : 12.06.2012 With reference to the Engineer-in-Chief's Memo 1.t cited. I am herewith submitting the proposals for regularization of services of NMRs/Daity Wages/part Time/Full Time Contingent Employees atong with the Service Particulars in prescribed proforma-I in respect of this Circle. This is submitted for favour of information. 6 SN.J 'r\ .' No.20653 2022 SUPERINTENDI IG ENGINEER, I & CADD, CONSTRLI(,TION CIRCLE, K,(] COLONY, HNK s 5 b;te or birth and ase ,s the d.te ol 55C 5C |; (B) The counter affidavi t has been filed nb ehalf of ndent No. 5andi n oarticular. the relevi ! rt Daras are e extracted ereunder ra 4. Dlv to Pa Therefore, the conrl'arison of Sri "In Abdul Kareem of GV Circle No.IV with the Lr( titioner is not correct whether Sri Abdul Kareem is Junior () not does not arise as he is the under the competent ai thorit', cf G\'r Circle IV whereas the present petitioner Sri M Mozes related and under the competent authority :' Construction Circle, Hanamkonda renamed as Irri; ation Cirele, Mahabubabad. "In reolv to Para 5, Based on the A(t 2/1994 with amendment Act 3/1998 & Act 21/1998, tlr : Government have prescribed a specific scheme for rt:r ularisation of Daily Wage /NMR / consolidated pay wor< :rs who have completed 5 years of continuous service as rn 25 11 1993 and continuing in the service shall be rec r larised in the clear LGS posts based on their qualifr< ation by the Government in terms of G.O.Ms'No'212, Ft'P (FW:PC'III) Dept., dt.22.04.1994. 7 SN,J W.P.No.20653 2022 The Government vide G.O(P).No.112, F&p Dept., dt.23.O7.L997 have prescribed a specific scheme for regularization of part Time employees who have completed 10 years of continuous service as on 25.11.1993 and continuing in the service shall be regularized in the clear LGS posts based on their qualification." ra6 I it is respectfully submit that Sri D.Sailoo. Full Time Contingent Watchman is pertaining to G.V. Circle No.IV, LMD Colony and and i it does not comes under the administrative purview / competent to the another Circle ie., Construction Circle, Hanumakonda which is renamed as Irrigation Circle, Mahabubabad whereas Sri M. Mozes is related to this Circle. Therefore, the comparison to the individuals of another jurisdiction of by the present petitioner is highly irregular and it is not correct. ft is respectfully submit that the petitioner had 7 years, 8 months & 24 days as part Time Contingent Sweeper as on 25.11.1993 and not having 10 years of service as on 25.11.1993 in terms of G.O(P).No.112, F&P Dept., dt.23.O7-t997 and also he is never worked as Full Time Contingent Sweeper as on 25.11.1993 as per G.O.Ms.No.212, F&p Dept., dt. 22.O4.L994 as submitted at para 5 above. As per Presidential Order, he belongs to Warangal District and he is claiming other district employees i.e., Karimnagar District which is against the G.O.610 /G.O.Ms.No. 128. GAD, d1.30.06.2021 and atso the said persons are not juniors /similar to him. Further, it is respectfully submit that the matter of remuneration of minimum pay plus usual allowances in the Revised Pay Scales of 2015 is related to pay Revision Commission and no comments. " 8 SN.J \\r I .No.20653 2022 "In reolv to Pa ra 6. it is res D.Sailoo. Full Time Contingent Watchman i:; G.V. Circle No.IV, LMD Colony and and i it d< under the administrative purview / com p another Circle ie., Construction Circle, Hanurr is renamed as Irrigation Circle, Mahabubab;l M. Mozes is related to this Circle. 'l- comparison to the individuals of another ju- the present petitioner is highly irregular correct. pectfully sttmit that Sri pertaining to es not comes 3tent to the akonda which I whereas Sri rerefore. the sdiction of by rnd it is not It is respectfully submit that the p(:l itioner had 7 years, B months & 24 days as Part Tirr e Contingent Sweeper as on 25.11.1993 and not havir( 10 years of service as on 25.11.1993 in terms of G.O(r ).No.112, F&P Dept., dt.23.07.1997 and also he is never rtorked as Full Time Contingent Sweeper as on 25.11. t993 as per G.O.Ms.No.212, F&P Dept., dt. 22-04.1994 il; submitted at Para 5 above. As per Presidential Order, he belonllr to Warangal District and he is claiming other district ': nployees i.e', Karimnagar District which is against the G.o.610 /G.O.Ms.No. 128. GAD, d1.30.06.2021 anrl also the said persons are not juniors /similar to him. Further; it is respectfully submit tha- the matter of remuneration of minimum pay plus usual all' rwances in the Revised Pay Scales of 2015 is related t: Pay Revision Commission and no comments."

5. Lear ed counsel aD arlno on bt: ralf of t e reD resentations to the S cial Chief e h i rner made ecretarv on ( 9 SN,J W.P.No.20653 2022

14.o2.2 o17. 3L.07 .2(J17 a nd 07.Lo.20L7 estino to reoularize oetitioner's service s and to convert him as Last Grade mDlovee. But the said aoo lication of the itioner n reiected bv the 5th resDon dent on the erroneous oround that the oeti o ner t id not com D lete 1O vears of service to convert into Last Gr de Service Sweeoer n fact Det rioner had comnleted36 vea rsof whereas service f the dzteo f n t at 's aooointment till today.

6. Learned counsel appearang on behalf of the petitioner submits that the present writ petition ts squarely covered by the order dated 26.03,2(J25 passed by this Court in W.P.No.7468 ot 2023 and hence the petationer is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.5 contends that the petitioner had 7 years, B months and 24 days as part Time Contingent Sweeper as on 25.11.1993, hence, did not have 10 years of service as on 25.11.1993 in terms of G.O.(p).No.112, 10 SN,J W.l' No.20653 2022 F&P Dept., dt.23.07.1997 and also he has never \vlrked as Full Time Contingent Sweeper as on 25'11'11) )3 as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. Hence, the pt:' itioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present \^'r t petition' DISCU SSION AND CON CLUSION:- tn (2020)1 oex Court in the iudoment reDorte( 8. The A SCC (L&S) in "Prem Sinoh v State of Uttar .l )radesh and I oth rs a u r have not I services rve been k-charged ect, their nder the ecision of :vi (3)11. "36. There are some of the employees wl t been regularized in spite of having rendered t r for 30-40 or more years whereas they ll superannuated. As they have worked in the wc't establishment, not against any particular prtr services ought to have been regularized t Government instructions and even as per the r this Court in State of Karnataka versus Uma I This Court in the said decision has laid down ti ten years services have been rendered for more than without the cover of the Court's order, a; one-time ,loyees. In measure, the services be regularized of such ent re worked the facts of the case, those employees who ha larized. It for ten years or more should have been regt leration of would not be proper to regulate them for consi we d irect regularization as others have been regularizecl, owever, it tnlt tneir services be treated as a regular one l is made clear that they shall not be entitled to ( :l riming anY ( ntinued in dues of difference in wages had they been c age of service regu larly before attaining superannuation. TheY shall be entitle dto r rceive the !: reqular pension as if theY have retired from tl ! bv them establ ish ment andt he se rces rend re( the wo rtq t from the dav thev 1<-charoed u nted as ou lifv I ose rvtce establishment shall be for ouroose of oension." ( t1 SN,J W.P.No.20653 2022

9. The Apex Court tn the case of "Dharwad Distric PWD Literate Dailv Waoe EmD Io t State of ka" o ori nciple that the State should not kee AD erson in tem rary or adhoc servI ce for lo no oeriod and have to treat such rsons as reoular one. sAs ion Vs. 90 2 scc P e39 o.P AN e ud of h A ex tn the "Sta of Ka rnata ka and others Vs . Umadevi". dated 1o. 4-2OO6 reoorte ln (2 6 4SCClis extracted he reund r:- e d r mav "53. One asoect need s be cl rified. Th a irreoul r aDDointments (not illeo a I aoooint ments) v. Na niun aDDa f 1972 ( 1 scc 4O9I and B.N. R.N- Naoa raian I1979 (4) a15 DOSTS riqht have been ma e and the emolovees have 5O7l and referr tn Da v n dul 1967 scR d n ) n f h s or mor twi h t reoularization of the services of such oue ion of m r r the Union ofI to an tn thel ohtof his iudo a. th Co t d h h o e for ment. fn that e State Governments and ke ste h ir ices of r cover in dul h rs r I n n reou ar recruitments are under ken to fill those temoorarv emD lovees or dailv wa ers are t Th onths fro m this date..... motion w vaca nt t a bo er n n s o f t-) SN,J W.l' ,'1o.20653 2022

11. The iudqment of the Aoex Court d ted _t-o.L2.2024, reoorted in 2O24 LawSuit(sc) 1 2o9 in "Jao oAnita and others v. Union of India and others", and ! re relevant extr cted oraoh Nos.L2, 13, 24. 26. 27 and 28 a Da ra I hereu nder: '12. Despite being labelled as "parl:' workers," the appellants performed I essential tasks on a daily and continuous over extensive periods, ranging from o il decade to nearly two decades. Their engag(: was not sporadic or temporary in nature, inrs it was recurrent, regular, and akin to responsi bi lities sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondenl not engage any other personnel for these during the appellants tenure, underscorin'1 indispensabte nature of their work. typically associated ,asis :ra :ead, ; did :asks 'l s i --l The clai mbv the resDondents that 13. acks merit- as the were not reoul arD oft he work perfo rmed bv the ao lla nt 4.. ndamen tal to the function oeren n i -r the offices. The recurrin g nature of these necessitates their classification as regular irrespective of how their initial engagementl; labelled. It is also noteworthy that subs < outsourcing of these same tasks to private a'l after the appellants' termination demonstrat€ inherent need for these services. This e outsourcing, which effectively replaced one workers with another further underscores that ttl' rn question was neither temporary nor occasionz I rq of luties )OStS, :ncies ; the rt of et of rWork

24. The landmark judgment of the United :; the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [') 1187 (gth Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent €) from the private sector. illustrating the consetl of misclassitying employees to circumvent pl1 benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified workers as independent contractors, thereby ! them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appt ate in 7 F.3d a mple rences viding :e rta in rnying als for 13 SN,J W.P.No.20653 2022 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 Corporatiofls 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 hiohli hts the iudiciarv's role in rectifvi n ns rl atw r clas I lve fair treatm t. s

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "iiregular" appointments. It ca oricallv h ld that emo lovees in irreqular in dul h sanctioned Dosts had served con nu.)lrslv for more than ten v rs should be conside d for reoula ization 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 Iack 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. elective This t effectivelv weaoonizino it aqainst ou rDose emolovees who have rende red indisoen sable 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 'ss trt t4 SN,.I \\r. I No.20653 2022 international labour standards but also expost: organization to legal challenges and undern employee morale. By ensuring fair emploir' practices, government institutions can redu'l burden of unnecessary litigation, promotc security, and uphold the principles of iustic( fairness that they are meant to embody, approach aligns with international standarc{! sets a positive precedent for the private se({ follow, thereby contributing to the ctt betterment of labour practices in the country l the This or to eral I In view of the above discussion aM fitt lings, 2A. the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders : lssed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set asi'l: and the original application is allowed to the fo llwing extent: i. The termination

27.1O.2018 are quashed; orders Cated llants back n dutv fo with and reo u la rt The a DE lants shallbe eir sc However forthwith. ll no Decu niarv benefitslback waoes fr e would be entitled to continu i h would be cou ted for retira lbenefits." d h _ aken 1 vices r the ! anv )' the 1 but !,r of ,1 same _ post- L2. The lud oment of thEA ex Court date e 31.01.202s reDorted in 2O25 INsc 144 in "SHRIPA L ANT AN OTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD". in Dart icula r, _ the relevant t para N os.15 to 19 a re extracted hereu der: ism ifest el E nt Workmen *15. contin uouslv re dered their services over - ;everal vears, de- ve if certatn .)re thanad o nntn m q.l me ! re Emolover's muster rolls were not orod u ced in full, 15 SN,J W.P.No.20653 2022 failure to furnish such record -d esnite di rections to do so-allow s an adverse rence under wel l-esta bl ished r s I n ent in Mor r w rk w d fulfil on otno munic llA fter vear reouirements vear cannot be dismi summarily as disoensable particularlv in the absence of a qenui ne 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 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, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse oF temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operaiions.

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: e Misu enoaoed for work thati s essent a "Temoor rv" Labels: EmDloyees currino. and l6 SN,J \A/ I .No.20653 2022 stitution are actual," even ose of reoul I r emplovees. kers of the requ la r Derforminq C t inteqral o the functioninq of an i r often labelled as "temoorarv" or "cont1 when their roles mirror th on deorives wor Such misclassifi dionitv, securitv, and benefits I hat emolovees are entitled to. desDit identical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary e frequently dismissed without cause or not the present case. This practice undermint:: of natural justice and subjects workers constant insecurity, regardless of the quit of their service. . Lack of Career Progres:;i employees often find themselves : opportunities for skill development, l incremental pay raises. They remain sta roles, creating a systemic disparity bettv their regular counterparts, despite thei being equally significa nt. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutic resort to outsourcing roles performed employees, effectively replacing one s 3 workers with another. This practice not c I exploitation but also demonstrates a del t bypass the obligation to offer regular emp t nployees are ce, as seen in the principles to a state of ty or duration )n: Temporary rcluded from 'omotions, or 3nant in their -'en them and contributions rs increasingly by temporary :of exploited ly perpetuates erate effort to yment. ^f R:c,. Ai.!htc - n6nial and Ranafi employees are often denied fundamental b pension, provident fund, health insurance, even when their tenure spans decades. Tr securitv subjects them and their fanti hardship, especially in cases of illness, unforeseen circu mstances. " s: Temporary :nefits such as rnd paid leave, s lack of socia I ies to undue retirement, or

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Em l to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequ<lt re-engagement on daily wages with some mea; minimurn pay. Regrettably, this onll' precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left improved yet still uncertain status. While :l recognized the importance of their work and hir oyer's inability tly, it ordered rre of parity i n perpetuated in a marginally e High Court :ed at eventual t7 SN,J W.P.No.20653 2022 regularization. it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record. L7. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, L947, and that thev l- nerennial .ruties- these were enoaoer! wo rkers cannot be re eoated to DerDetu I uncertaintv. While concerns of mu c oa budoet a nd mDliance with recruitment rules me rtt co n ideration, such concerns do not absol he Ernolove of statutorv oblioations or r negate equitable entitlements. Indeed. bureaucratic a<cFriti k en wh n n nu iti at reqular roles for an extended oeriod. im u n fine th A t h Hi tLataa +a frr}lrra drilv-rerraa o eno aoem ent withoL:t contin U tv or meaninoful waoes, is he rebv et asida h the followino directions: s I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 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 continuity in service. lI. 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 oeriod of t8 SN,J \t.)No.20(r53 2022 absence (from the date of terminatio reinstate ent) shall be counted for il cons I uentia n r until actua I :ontinuity of ts, such as . if anv. I III. Considering the length oF service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o of the b3lk wages from the date of their discontinuation untll their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer ;hall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from tl- 3 date of their reinstatement. n n osts. fn asses is dire< ;! ed to anitiate IV. The Resoondent Em D ver a fair and transDa nt Drocess for re I ularizinq the AoDellant Workmen within six months rom the date 'act that thev of reinstatement, dulv considerinq th€- uties kin to have oerformed o rennial municaDal ( I rrization, the Emolover shall n lmDose ecll cational or r a r cedural reouirements were never aoplied to - he Appellant Workmen or to similarlv situated reot!.1 ar emolovees in the Dast. To the extent that sancti( I red vacancies for such duties exist or are r:quired, the Resoondent Emolo er shall exoedite _ all necessarv administrative oroces sest o e.nsure I! ese lonotime emolovees are not indefin itelv retE xed o waoes contrarv to statutor and eouit j ble norms. 19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed l the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by th ] Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed. " v !.1

13. The Apex Court in a iudqment reDOrte tn 20 L Suoreme Court cases 148, in "State of Puniab and others vs Jaqiit Sin o h and others" at Paras 54 and _ ts sub-oaras (lt)(2)( 3), of the said udqment observed as ! nder: "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, vr rrle adiudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary I9 SN,J W.P.No.20653 2022 employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay- scale, merely for the reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The fu bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fett in either of the two exceptions, were held entitted to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:- "(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 equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2) But if ilv waoers- ad hoc or contractual aDo ointees are not eD oointed aoa st reoular nd thei, =l ntin o qttqilaA ha Qfala Government or its in stru entalities for a sufficient lono period i.e. for 70 vearc, such dailv waqers. ad hoc or contractual aooointees shail entitled to minimum of the reoutar pay scale without any htaaLc b a um tion oerennial nature is available and hav, o wotked for riod of tim an edut ble rioht is such lono created in such cateoorv of oersons. Their claim for reou lariz,ation. if anv. m v have to be considered It. ihla crhanta ms of I' I (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion 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." L4. The i udo ment of the ADex Court reDorted in 2010(9) scc 247 betwee n: "Sta te of Karnataka nd others v a M.L,Kesar i and others". tn DA icular. oa as 4 to 9 reads as r under: 20 SN..I \\'.'] No.20653 2022 The decision in te of Karnataka v. Umadel 1 .was rendered ) SCC 1). 'r on 10.4.2O0 6 (reDorted in 2006 G that case- n Constitution Bench oi this Court held that app. i ltments made without following the due process or the rt l s relating to appointment did not confer any right on the z tpointees and cou rts cannot direct their absorption, regular zation or re- engagement nor make their service permanenl, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Articl, 226 of the Constitition should not ordinarily issue direction:; For absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless l le recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in -erms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts mus be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly witt the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its itt: trumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilita't the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. Tll ; Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual ('t a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be m tde permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the rete vant rules or in adherence of Articles 74 and 16 of the Constittr' ion. This Court however made one exception to the above pt sition and the same is extracted below : ! 4 scc o "53. One asoect needs to be clarified -There mav be cases where irreoular ao ointmenrl; (not illeoal ADD ointments) as exolained in S.V NaravanaDDa 17967 (7 I s,CR 72A1. R.N. niundaIpa [7972 (71 scc 4091 and B.N. Naoaraian 17979 and referred to in oara 75 above. ot' duly qualified s in dulv sanctioned vacant Dc: ts mioht have been ma e and the emolo vees hav g continued to ten vears or more but witho work for intervention of orders of the courts gr of tribunals. n oft '! e services of The ou tion of reoulariza av have to be ' onsidered on such emolovees me rits in the lioht of the princ ioles . ;ettled bv this Court in he cases abovere rred to a ,rd in the liaht the Uni'on of In that con?ex t of th,s .state Government: India- instrumentalities should take steos , :.! | reqularize as aon time measu re, the servi sofstch irreoularlv vears or more rked for e in dulv sanctioned Dosts but not ver of of the courts or of tribun.z ts and should orders that reqular fu rth ensure undertaken to fi,l those vacant sa, tctioned DOSTS that reouire to be filled uD, I rl cases where dailv wa c ers are beino temDorar tttfontcnl- vees or 'ut men who h em Dlo ,.et , L 2l SN,J w.P.No.20653 2022 now emDloved. Th Dtocess must be set in with,ns months m this date. .... "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 1O 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 setvice voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) fhe appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or 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 had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selectionl such appointments are considered to be irregular. ins umentalit r s t.h ad se to take steos to Government or reoularize the services of those irreqularlv aopointed d without the b enefit or o rotection of an interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi. directed that such one-time measurem ust be set in motion w.ithin six months from e date of its decision (rendered on 7O.4. 2006). 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 exercse and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the interyention 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 stx months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pendinq before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instru mentalities did not commence the one- 22 SN.J w.t, rJo.2065i 2022 time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities r ndertook the one-time exercise excluding several €mp tsy." consideration either on the ground that their cas€: were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circLmstances, the emptoyees who were entitled to be considered i) terms of Para 53 of the decision in lJmadevi, will not lose tlr, ir right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering l,'eir cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para j3 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should cort ider all daily- wage/adhoc/those employees who had put i'' 10 years of continuous service as on 70.4.2006 withoLl availinq the protection of any interim orders of cou rts or tr bunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terrl; of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some :mployees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umade v , the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as . aonlinuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise n'r I be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled lc be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considert't . a i \ i to ens:t're terim orde, E of co tion r oara 53 of 8. The obiect behind the said di at tho5e who Umade trs two- fold. First is to en sure t have out in more than ten ve rs of cont ,uous servlce without the Drotection of anv i ision in Umade v, was tribunals, before the date of oularizatt< n in view of rendered, are considered for their onct serutce. Second is deoartmen ts/ instrumentalities do not r'! rpetuate the Dractice of emDlov,no Dersons I tilv-waoe/ad- hoc/casual for lono oeriods a d the t periedjcally at thev tt, rve served for reoularize them on the oround an ten veats, therebv defea tinq th,? constitutional or statutorv orovisions relatino to re< ruitment and aDDOtn ment. The true effect of the dire ion is that all rked for mor'e than t:t ,n Vears as on Detsons who ha ve 1o.4.2006 ( the date of decision, n Umade i)I ithout the r tribuna Drotection of anv interim order of anv cout 1 vacant Dosts. Dossessino the reouisit.eot tlification are ! entitled to be co nsidered for re.oularizatio 7. The fact that has not unde a ken suc t exercise of the emDlo reoulariza tion within six m onths of t' ,n Umadevi or that su h exercise s und 'taken onlv in isentitle such reoard to a limited few. will not emplov ees, the riqht to be considered fo I reou larization ne-tim in terms of the above directi' measure. in Umadevi as ( :! 1 Z) SN,J W.P.No.20653 2022

9. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision in umadevi or thereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that 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 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 lJmadevi. 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 sentices 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 appea! is disposed of accordingly.

15. In the iudoment of the Aoex Court in "Nihal Sinoh and others v. State of Puniab" reported in (2O13) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Specaal 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 24 SN.J W.1' rIo.20(r53 2022 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 ctr' rse to make appoantments of persons creating contractual It also refu€ed_lo relataonship, its action is arbitrary. acceot the defence that there were no sanr: ioned oosts and so there was iustification for the Sta r..l e to utilase ellants fo services of larqe number of oeoole like the a decades. It held that "sanctioned posts do tr t fall fr m heav n and that the State has to creatt them bva I f iiants consclous choice on the basis of som ration i assessment of need. Referrin q to Umadevi, it held that t e apo n _ their initial trefore them were not arb trarilv aooointm ent was not an'irreqular'a ooointn snt as it had with the statut( 1 v orocedure been made in a Drescribed under the Police Act, 1851, ar d he State cannot be h eard to sav that thev . are not ntitled to be a bsorbed into the services basis as, accord ino to it, t err aDoorntment w re ourel temDorarv and not aoaanst anv sanctioned los the Stater 1 oerm ccordance create v ) ,l E 25 SN,J w.P.No.20653 2022 bY the State. It was held that the iudom ent in Umadevi cannot ome a licence for exDloitation bv the State and its instrumentalities and neith er the Government of Pu n ab nor those ou blic se I r Banks can continue such a nt wi obli ation to f n cordan w Constit

16. The iudo ment of the Aoex Court reDorted in 2015 scc onl !ne SC 1797 between "B.Srinivalusu an others v Nellore Munic Dal Corooration ReD bv t s Commissioner. Nellore Distri Andhra Pradesh and others", in oarticular oaras 7 and 8 reads as under: e n been in the first res ondent not onl (7) We find it difficult to acceDt the reasonino adoDted bv the Hioh Court. The riaht of the aooellants to seek reqularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.19 94. The aDDellant issuance of the said G.O. but e nsU bseouent 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. 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/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2OO9 (8) SCC 480. 26 SN.J \[ .'' No.20653 2022 a rkant Rai v tate of Bihar" reoort :d 201

17. In "A SCC 265. the Suoreme Court held that 'Ti e objective behind the exception carved out in this case vl ts to permit regularisation of such appoantment, which a re irregular 8 but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure securitv of emplovment of those oersons who had sen :d the State Government a nd their instrume ntalities for n 1 cre than ten r This d In tha em lo ee lslon aDoroves earlier vrew €|: o 2 ea rs. M.L.Kesari ex racted above.

18. In State of "Ja rkhand v Kamal Prasa oi' reoorted in (2014) 7 SCC 223, similar view was taken by-:he cu reme C urt and it was ha drc follo s "47.... In view of the cateoorical findino tf fact on relevant contentious issue that e TESDOJI'1?nt emDloYees eir service for ,rTlrre _than 7O vears n nued tn continuousl v therefore, the I orinciple lai down b this Court in Umadevi case (State of Karna ! tka v Umadevi pra 53 souarelv 2006 L apolies to the Dresent cases. The Divisictt r Bench of the Hiqh Court has riohtlv held that t res o dent the 5 ,me ca not be emolove es are entitled for the re interfered with hv th,s c,ou 7:2 73 t

19. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.Lt .2022 passed in W.P.No.27602 ot 2O19 which pertains to regularization 27 SN,J W.P.No.20653 2022 of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been uphetd by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2O23 dated 1O.1O.2O23 and also confarmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2024 in SLP No.32847 ot 2024.

20. The i ud ment of thEA Dex Court in "Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra an Others" reoorted in AIR 2O2O SuDreme Court 396 and in oarticular oara Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows: dr rfrr-}ra und in "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 Governm nt or a oublic authoritv has fa iled to exercise or rred u oonitbva h a wronolv exercised disc statute. or a rule, or a oolicv decrston ot t he Government rha s exercised su ch d iscretion ma a fi de, or on o ant conside ation. ion confe ow f w avarrica s

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." 2L. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment dated 1O.06.2O13 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O and 854 oJ 2OL2 while upholding the Judgment dated O8.O9.2O1O passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 observed as under!- 28 SN,J W.l'No.20653 2022 "Further, it is manifest from the material on rt cord that the services oi the similarly placed persons who appl ( ached the law Courts were regulai'ized. The a p pellant-Corporal i rn also issued various office orde rslcircu la rs dated 20.12.198!, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for rt:r ularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen lI at Section 25- T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice b! any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual -':enario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for st ch a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is not ling but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of Secli)n 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying o I the decisions of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respondr: )ts are entitled to regularization as directed in the impugned )rders, as the learned single Judge considered all the aspects c t the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, whlch, in our ( lnsidered view does not warrant interference in these appeals. "

22. The Division Bench of this Court in i s Judgment dated 19.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.272.".7 of 2OL7 reported in 2o18(2)ALD page 282 at para 1li and para 18 observed as under:- " 16. it rs trite that the law declared by the S;1 preme Court is binding throughout the country under Arti:e 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that c / the time the judgment in LJma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the prouisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms, No.212, dated 22.4.1gg4, were in existence. The Suprerr : Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization antl absorption of f persons, who entered service through back c< ors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for rppointments to publrc posts, consciously ordered for one-time absorption/regularization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given lirections in this regard to all the State Governments and als: Union of India' The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscioL s of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executil: orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.!994, while glv ng directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in tJma Devi's :;se (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour o' :he States where State enactments banning regula rization/ a )sorption exist' i No.212, dated oo n G.O Ac 2 f r 29 SN,J W.P.No.20653 2022 L c, e

22.4 99 1 down the w do otw hitt idth a nd the n nMa e traiectorv of rhed trectionq issrr dtrvt n Suoreme Court in Para 53 of its iudoment in a Devi's case (su ra ). It is. ther re, not Dermissibl e for the respondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212. dated 22.4.1994, to denv regularization to a v d wn n N 5 Deyi s case (supra). na t + on rzlmi++aJlrr erficfiad h e h f ic rllarrrazl

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 and t ha r^,rii nat h resDondents t consider reou a risatio n o he services of the oetitioners against the exastino vacancies of Work fnspectors and appoint them subject to thear satisfving the crateria laad down in Para No.53 of the iudqment in Uma Devi's case (suora). This Drocess must be comDleted within two months from the date of receipt of a copv of this order. " rr hth i f.r f i^'r t

23. The Davision Bench of this Court in its Judgment dated 21.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.L oJ 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 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. 44. rti has not followed the decisio NI nll ma Devi's case (suora), as exolained tn M.L. Kesa fl 'sc se (suora) and undertaken a one-time exercise of oren rino the list of d ilv waqe not known whw e 1st resoonden s e w re h n without the intervent ion of the Cou and Tri bunals as on 1O.4.2006 and subject them to a process verification as to whethe r thev are vvorki na aoar st vacant sts and rtatcse d iC so reoular ize their se ita .rr ralifi^-l n C^7 rces. +116 ^h- ^ 30 SN,J u P No.20653 2022

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; -he impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respor dent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of sr: vices on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary . r d violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution :f India; thg resoondents are directed to reoularize on (1 te-time basis petitioners' services from the date each of U re oetitioners comolete 10 vears of service on dailv wi! res from the initial dates of their a DDOI N Cment. But, th€ I shall not be entitled to anv mone rv relief. The said ex g rcise shall be done within two ( 2 ) weeks from the dat(I of receiot of coDY of the order."

24. This Court ooanes that in the orese J t case, the resDondents failed to discharq e their dutv j r examininq the reque t of the oetitioner for reoulrrization of services, as Office Subordilr rte a Detitioner's G.O.Ms.No.212 bv fixinq oav as oer revise:t I oav scales 2O15 includin o DA. Arrears of salarv w th c onsequentaal Der and attenda nt benef its.

25. This Court ooines that oetitioner i:; entitled for consideration of Detitioner's case for orant (I' the relief as praved for in the present Writ Petition il! view of the ln varro ! s iudqments rv tions of the Apex Court €t (referred to and extracted above and h ) view of Divisi Bench of thi s Court in the Jud omerr ts referred to and extracted above. It 3t SN,J W.P.No.20653 2022

26. This Court o ines that the reouest of the oetitioner for reoul a rization of Detitaoner's services nnot be retected on the oroun th at d D eta ioner had not comoleted t manimum oeri d of 1O vears of service as on 25.11.1993 tn terms of G (P) No.112. F&P. Deot.. da ed 23.O7.t997 and on the o rou nd that oetitioner never orked as Full Time Cont no ent SweeDer as on 25.11.1993 sance it is the soecific case of the Detit oner that the oetit oner h ad bee n workino since 1986 onwards as Office Subordinate and hence the oetitioner had worked for more than ten vears as on 10.04.2OO6 and hen Detitioner herein is entitled c for consideration of Detitroner scase for petitioner's services as oer the observations of the ADex qularizataon of Cou rt tn the case of State of P uniab and O hers Vs. Jaqiit Sino h and Other in oa tc ular oara N o.54 and its sub- 1 2 and 3 t rred l r a ove and as oer the observatio ns t oara 53 of the Judoment in Umadevi's case andal so as oer the observations in the va rto u s t ud oments oftheA DEx Court( referred to and extracted above) and also as oer the Division Bench ourt (referred to and extracted Judqment's of this c above). ,-1 1 SN,J W'.1' No.20653 2022

27. Takino into c nsideration: - a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of :he case, b) The submassions made by the learr ed counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing o r behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 6. c) The averments made in the counter affic avit filed on behalf of the respondent No.5, in particular, para nos.4 and 5 (referred to and extracted above) d) The observations of the Apex Court ir the various judgments (referreci to and extracted abor,,r) and again enlisted below: ix2o2o) l scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) scc Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 5s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 Scc223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2o06) 4 Scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page234 JJ SN,J W.P.No.20653 2022 (xv) 2O18(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.tB2 ol 2O1O and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dated OB.O9.2O1O passed in W.P.No.24377 ol 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 19.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.272L7 oJ 2O17 (referred to and extracted above), S) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 21,.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l oJ 2O2O in I of 2O19 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 (referred to and extracted above). The Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the petataoner's claim for regularization of petitioner's services in 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 10 years of service as followed by this Court in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 dated O8.O9.2O10 reported in 2011 (1) ALD, Page 234 and as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 34 SN,J w l' .Jo.20653 2022

10.06.2013, and also as per Division Bench I rdgment of this Court dated 19.O9.2O17 passed in W.P.i o.272L7 ot 2OO7 reported in 2O18(2)ALD page 282 ar d also the Division Bench Judgment of this Court datecl 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l ot 2O2O in 1 of 2019 in \ l P.No.23O57 of 2O19 reported in 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 which had attained finality (referred to and extracted al: cve), within a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance to law, in corr lormity with principles of natural iustice by providing an c'| rportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, duly taking into consideration the observations and the law laid down by the Apex extracted Court in the various judgments (re lerred to and above), and in Particuiar, Dara i io.53 of the 'ate of Apex Court in the case' of ent of t and duly comr tunicate the Karna ka v. Uma Dev, decision to the petitioner. However, thert: shall be no order as to costs. 35 SN,J W.P.No'20653 2022 Miscellaneous petitions' if any' pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed' SD/.S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// One fair coPY to the HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE S (For His LordshiP's Kind Peru ECTION OFFICER : E ALLI NANDA ,. an" Secretary, I & CAD Department' Secretariat State of Telangana at , +il:?if"t;er in chief' I & cAD Department' Enrum Manzil' Hvderabad'- 'cl;i'En;inL"r, S.i.a*sagar Project stageJ L'M'D -' dionv. Karimnagar' 3. The Administrator "r* a Y[Jiiii"i i"sinder, warangal' GLls office' 5. The Superintending e"gifi;Ei'iI CADD cgl.ttruc{ion Circle' Hanamkonda' ;: +'# EiSJriirE e"g'in".i, i"igitlon Division waransal' 7. 11 L.R. Copies- 8. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia' Ministry of Law' Justice and Cornpany 9. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library' High Court 1O.Two CCs to GP FOR lRRl AND COMM AREA DEVELOPMENT' High Court '"'r*ii" si"t" of relansana at Hv!99!1d lguTl-. 11.iil;'ccdsnr p n ailRAiu'xuuRn' Advocate [oPUC] 12.Two CD CoPies Buildings, HYderabad ' Affairs, New Delhi. SA BS Ny HIGH COURT DATED:12 t06t2}Zi C.C. TO DAY ( o 2 i Ia d,r I

1. .i 111

2. a,) :( ,:-J:Ei 1i ,/-/ ,i.' ORDER WP.No.20653 of 2022 ALLOWING THE W.P WIHOUT COSTS. I \'t/ r$ ,