The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI GADDAM SRINIVAS, (sc FoR TSRTC ZONE 2) The Court made the following: ORDER -) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMA ARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. o460 of2O22 ORDER: questioning the order of the This Writ Petition has been lile 3.d respondent in No'P3/ 122(2ll2OO in rejecting the representation of the petitioners, dated 04.O4.2O 12 le for regul arization of their by holding that they are not eligi WM; KR, d,ated 19.O4.2012, servlces 2 Heard G.R. MercY VijaYa' le and Sri Gaddam Srinivas' le respondents. Perused the record' ed counsel for the Petitioners ed Standing Counsei for 1 .1996 as contract labourers,

3. The facts, in a nutshell' are th t the petitioners were engaged aI workshop TSRTC (The then as sweepers and cleaners in th.e Zo APSRTC), Karimnagar ZONE' on O1 before bifurcation of the State They clealers by the Contractor named S work of sweePing and cleaning in th the ZorLal workshoP of the 2"d O 1.O 1. 1996. Initially, it u'as for on was extended from time to time' respondent with effect from -year period. SubsequentlY, it i. A. Srinivas for executing the 1'' respondent CorPoration at werd engaged as sweePers and 4 3(i) The Government of Andhra Pradesh hacl issued G.O.Ms No.2B7 dated 07.05.1981 prohibiting the engagement of contract labour in the field of Sweeping and Scavenging. Therefore, the Competent Authority, i.e. the Assistant Commission<:r of Labour, Karimnagar, has refused to grant the licence to thc' contractor and also registration certificate to the employer on thc ground that engaging of contract labour was prohibited in respcct of the above specihc works. 3(ii) As per the policy of the Government, r,r,ht-.rever there is a perennial work of sweeping and scavenging availablc, the said work has to be carried out by the regular employees and not bv engaging the services of contract labour. As there is a prohibition in engaging the contract labourers for Sweeping and scavenging. the petitioners were engaged and worked for Sweeping and cicaning by the Contractor from 01.01.1996 to 30.06.1997 .and 04.O2.2OO3 to today. 3(iii) Initially, the petitioners filed W.P.No.1330B of 1997 before this Court cleclaring the action of the Corporation ir-r engaging new persons in the place of the petitioners as illegal and, consequently, direct the respondents to treat the petitioners as regular employees, right from the date of their initial appointrnent q,ith al1 consequential benefrts. White pending the Wit Petition, the 5 -) Petitioners were terminated on O 1'07

1997. The said Writ Petition was a-llowed on 26.08.1999 with the fo lowing directions: "In the result, the resPondents the seruices of the Petitioners in engaged for car4|lng out the hoLueuer, subject to the requirements uith refereftce L u.there it uas stated that thelr list supplied bY the controc directed to consider their subje Petitioners that their nomes Lae supplied by the contractor. A allou.,ed- No costs, " are directed to regularize tlle post uhich theg u-tere ork rts controct labour, l.filtment of the other the Petitioners 7 to 1O mes u)ere not there in the r, the respondents are to the satisfoction bg the there in the oiginal tist inglg, the Wit Petition is 3(iv) Aggrieved bY the above o er in WP. 13308 of 1997, the then A.P.S.R.T.C. filed Writ Appeal No.15O3 of 1999 before this Court, and the sarne was dismissed y an order dated 28.10.1999, confirming the order passed by the le ed Singie Judge bY Passing the following order. "Contrdct Labour SYstem stoo G.O.Ms. No.492 dt. 16- 10.198 in respect of the CorPorotion. opplicabilitg oJ G.O.Ms. 287' euen contested before the lea again a question of fact rois appeol and the aPPe\lant can anA neu) case at tLrc aPPellat prohibition is onlY tuith resPe labour uhose number is more in uieut of the prouisions of G. uhich has been issued erte r f obolished in uiew of the , the applicabilitg of Luhich not in disPute. SimilartY, dt.O7.O5. 1981 tuos neuer ed Single Judge tuhich is for the first time in the t be permitted to make out stage. The contention that to emploAment of contract n 20 cannot be accePted .Ms.No.492 dt. 16. 10. 198O ding the operation of the 1 I 6 prohib[tion in case of specifted categoies of tucn-k inttuding stueeping and scauertging ulTere the numbr:r of contract labour engaged is less than 20. In uieut ol the obseruations made aboue, u.te find no errc)r rn the ord.er passed bg the learned single judge. The Writ .Appeat is accorcling lg dismissed ". Aggrieved by the dismissal of W.A.No. 1503 of 1999, the APSRTC carried the matter to the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.239 of 2O00. By an order dated

05.05.2000, the Apex Court disposed of the matter as under. "Serutce is complete.. but nobody has put [n a.p;tt,ctrart r:e on behalf of the respondents. In addition to the inteint orcler passed. earlier it is further prouided that iltottqh lhe respondents shalt be continued in the service. their seruices shall not be regularized in terms of thc direction of the High Cour7. The Special Leaue Petitton is disy;osetl ctf. 3(v) The petitioners herein, respondents in I hc SLp, \trere not heard while passing the above order; therefore, they liled I.A. No. 1 of 2OO0 in the said Special Leave to Appeal (Civit) No.239 of 2O00. The said I.A. u'as disposed of on 02.03.200 l u ith the follo*,ing directions: "Applications atloued. The order dated Sth Mau. 2OO0 is recalled. After heaing the counsel for the pufl.ies, ue, direct that the respondents shall be continut:d in the seruice and the questton of their regulari-z.atictrr will be decided in accordance ulth the ntles. The Spe(:ta[ Lcoue Petition is disposed of. " 7 / Against the order dated 02.03. 00 1, a review petition was filed by APSRTC in Review Petition (Ci l) No. 856 of 2001 in I.A.No. 1 of 2000 in Special Leave Petition (C vil) No.239 of 2000, and the said review petition was disposed of o 1a.Ol.2OO2 as under: "Afier heoing the aunsel for t error u)as committed as the cou the fact that the resPondents a order dated 2"d Morclu 2OOl tlaere uas no error on the Parto order of 2"d Morch, 2OO1 utas P respondents tuere in seruice u..thi the order dated 2"d Morch, 2OO this uould be that the earlier gets reuiued. Thjs Reuieut Petitio parlies tn as much an did not take into account not ln seruice uthen the passed, euen though the respondents and the sed on the basis that the h uas factually incorrect, is reatlled. The elfect of r doted 5'h MaA 2OOO uos disposed of." 3(vi) The order passed on 05.05. 0OO by the Apex Court was revived. Despite such arr order, Pe tioners r rere not continued. Petitioners were reinstated into serv ce on 04.O2.2OO3, and the petitioners are continuing as such till to date. Thereafter, the petitioners hled .W.P.No'27 349 of 2OO before this Court seeking a direction to absorb them in the Corp ration as regular emPloyees. The said Writ Petition was disPo ed of by arr order dated

09.O2.2Ol l. The Operative portion is e tracted as under: "l am afraid I maA not be submission mode bY the respondents. The purPort of t Court is that theA are not regularization but, it d.oes not ble to agree Luith the rned counsel for the order of the SuPreme utomalically entitled for mean that theA are not 8 entttled for regurariz.ation euen if uacancies ctre aL,atrabre and theg are continued for rea.sonably long penod. All the aboue orders uould indicate thot the petitioners (tre not automaticallg entitlecl for regularization as per the orders of thk Court in W.p. No. 1330g of 1997, tuhich uas conJirmed in the wit appeal, but that d.oes not me(1n tlrat the petitioners are not entitled for regularizatiot L therea]ter as per the seruice ntles of ApSRTC in uiew of the serutce put in bg them afi.er reinstatement on 04.02.200:1. Btt notu Petitioners u-,ould haue put in more than eight g.urc o1 seruice and admittedlg theg l.nue been uorkiry as emplogees of the ApSRTC though at one point of time it tuo-s claimed that theg Luere contract emplogees, tuhtch LUas not accepted in the earlier round of litigatiort ruhich Luent up to Supreme Court. Therefore, respondents bound to cortsider regulari-zation of seruices the Petitioners in the respondent Corporation- Notu it is more than lg ltears that theg haue been since u,tot rherefore,respondents"::::..::::":,*:;:,":;:::':" of the Petttioners Jbr regurarization of their seruices i, tho APSRIC as per the seruice conditions gouenting thern. .!_his exercise shall be completed uithin a period. of eight tueeks from the dote of receipt of o copg of this Order. The utit petition is accordingly disposed of uith the abol,tz dirsclil'n".' 3(vii) Aggrieved by the above order in W.p.No.27349 of 2003, the APSRTC filed Wrir Appeal No.2i5 of 2O1l before this Court, but the same was dismiss.o o, an order dated 15.o3.20 12. Tht: operative portion is extracted as under: Err - , F- .rr- t'. r+!a ! tt *l \ i 9 "The Wit Appeal, being deuoid o dismissed at the admisslon stage meits, is accordinglg uer, u)e extend the t[me stipulated bg the leamed SingLe Judge relating to the cLaim of the responden uithin a period of four tueeks from the this judgment. No order as to costs" pass approprictte orders for their regulonzotion ate of receipl of a copy of 3(viii) The petitioners filed C.C.N 954 of 20 12 Under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts t to punish the respondents herein for violating the Orders of the High Court made in W.P.No.27349 of 2OO3, dated 09 02 .20 1 1 as conflrmed in W.A.No.215 of 2011 dated 15.03.20 1 Thereafter, the respondent Corporation considered the petitione s' cases and rejected their representation for regularization vide o der, dated 19.O4.2012 on the following grounds: Section 7 & 7-A of the Act 2 of 1 Appotntments to htbtic Seruice staff pattern and pag struct regulorization of dailg uage emp 994 (A.P. Regulation and and RationalizaLion of re Act 1994) Prohibits ees as matter of ight 2 A constitutionaL Bench of Apex C' Karnotko u Uma Deui, Reported hetd thctt uithout follouing due to appointment do not confer an and the Courts cannot direct the or re-engagement nor make the the Petitioners cannot clalm recruitment had been done tre constitutio nal s cheme s. urt in Secretary, State of n 2oo6 (SCALE)/ (4)/ 197 rocedure/ Rules relating ight on the appointees b s o r ption, re gu lanzat io n seruices pennanent and lanzation unless the lar manner in tenns of IO 3 As per APSRTC Emplogees (Rect) Regulations, the requi_site qualifcation for the post of Shramic is ITI Diesel mechantc. The uacancies are being fiUed bg issuing not[frcation. In thls case, the Petitioners are not hauing the requisite quali.fication. The Petitioners u)ere not engaged bg the APSRfC by issuing notifcation. Sn Klshan 1 1 others uere neither recruited against the sa.nction uctconcies in the corporation nor theg possess the requisite qualif.cations. Therefore in tLe light o.f the aboue facts and legal position, I consider that Si K.shan and. j l others are not eligible for regularization of their seruices. 3(ix) In pursuance of the Orders of the High Court in W.P.No.27349 of 2OO3, as confirmed in Writ Appeal No.215 of 2011, the responderlts herein have passed a Speaking Order No.P3l122(2ll2OO9-WM KR, dated 19.O4.2Ot2 rejectins the case of the petitioners for regularization. However, the petitioners have already fiied C.C.No.954 of 2Ol2 on the file of this Court, and the said C.C. 'n,as closed on 30.O7.2021, giving liberty to the petitioners to challenge the rejection Order dated lg.O4.2ol2. As such, the present Petition is filed.

4. Respondents filed counter stating that vide item No.4(b) of G.O.Ms.No.16l2016 it is clearly stated that: "ofter sect[on 10, the follouing neta section shall be ad.ded namelg: "Regukttion of Seruices of persons appointed. on contracl basis, 1O A, NotLuithstondingl angthing contained in this Act, the Goueorment mag regulaize lhe seruices of the persons appointed 11 on controct basis against the s Gouernment, subject to fulfitlment of the nctioned posts in the ollotuing conditions: 1- Auailabitity of post in the reteuant d-eparlments shalL be the Pre co ns ide ing r egu tarizatio n. egory tn the respectlue requisite condition for

2. Regularization mag be considered o oppointed on full time contract remunerotion. " lg in respect of basis on a persons monthl!/ In the case of the Petitioners, ey were not apPointed ona contract basis against the sanctio G.O.Ms.No.16l2016 is not applicab submitted that the Corporation had of Attender, Mali, Sweeper, etc', w'e'f do not exist in the Corporation at pr ed posts, and hence, the e in this case. They also ade zero norms for the Posts

15.03.2004 and these Posts sent and as such stating the qualification for the post of Sweeper d s not arlse. 4(i) The Hon'ble SuPreme Cou directions to the Corporation for re services on the grounds as claim recruitment method Scavenger/ Sweeper / Maali /Malan p recruitment, which was correct in the t of India has not given artY larization of the Petitioner's d. The contention of the sts is through direct past, i.e., before 15.03.2004. After the norms were zero for these sts, the Corporation did not recruit anyone for these posts' The c tention of experience gained during tine 20 years long service could not be denied on the grounds I 2 of the non-possession of qualification which is incorrect. The petitioners have worked as Sweepers, artd the experience gained with this work could not be matched with the qualification of ITI Diesel Mechanic, which is the minimum requiremcnt for selection to the post of Shramik/Khalasi , a(ii) The period of sweeping work done by the petitioners on a contract basis lor about 2o years, is not worth consideration for regularization since the post of Sweeper does not exist in the corporation at present when the post of Sweeper is abolished in the corporation, the question of the availability of the sanctioned vacancies does not arise. The contention of the petitioners that the work done by the petitioners and their responsibilities are identical to regular employees, is incorrect. The petitioners are in no way held responsible for their mistakes; their contractor was held accountable. Thev work under the contractor control per the terms and conditions of the Agreement entered into by the contractor. The service conditions prescnbed to the Corporation for the regular employees do not apply to the petitioners. Hence, the question of regularizing the petitioners on par with the regular employees does not arise. (iii) By an oftrce Order No.OS4/255(36)2007 pO.tII, dared 02 .O7 .2009 . instruction s were issued for regularizing all casual .-.j l3 /. employees recruited uP to 200 1 an on roils as of 0 I 07 -2OO9 However, the petitioners are not r cruited by the Corporation. Hence, they will not come under this uruew. The qualification for the post of Sweeper as per the Recrui ment Regulations is, to write simpte sentences in Telugu/ Hindi or Urdu. The contention of the petitioners that they have not been r gularized for the reason that they do not have ITI qualilication. is i correct. There does not exist the Sweeper post in the CorPorati n at present. The Persons recruited regularly for the posts of Att nder, Sweeper, Mali etc., have been re-cate gorized to work Shramik Khalasi after abolishing these posts by the CorPoration. 4(iv) The orders Passed bY th High Court to consider the petitioners as regular employees, we e struck out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the Peti ners have been continued as contract labour in the Corporation to ate The work period of about 20 years as contract labour in the Co poration does not confer them any right for regularization of their s ices. There are no merlts In the writ petition and prayed to dismis the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that where the regular or irregular pointments take Place, a tempora,ry basis against sanctioned p sts cannot be continued as a temporan basis lor a one time measure; they have to be l4 regularized, and he relied upon the judgment of Hontrle Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Kantataka Vs. UmadeuiL. But, in the present case, petitioners \\,ere not appointed against sanctioned posts; their appointments arre purely on a contract basis, and Contractor appointed thus. After disposing of the review petition by filed by the APSRTC before rhe Hon,ble Supreme Court on 18.o1'2oo2, the petirioners fired w.p.No.27349 of 2oo3 before this court seeking lbr a direction to absorb them in the corporation as regular employees. The said Writ petition was disposed of by an order dated O9.O2.2O| l. The Operative portion is extracted as "I am afrctid I nay not be able to ctgree uith the submission made bg the leanrc<l counsel for the respondents_ The purport oJ the order of the supreme Court is that theg ore not automottcallg entitled for reqularization but. it d_oes not mean that theu are not entitted for regularization euen if uacancies are aua oble and they are continued for reasonablg long peiod. A the aboue ord.ers uLould tndicate that the petitioners are not automatically entitLed for reqularization as per the ord.ers of this Cou rt in W.p. No.133OB oJ 1997, u.thich tuas conf.rmed tn the tait appeal, but that does nol meon that the petitioners are not entitled for regularization thereafter as per the seruice ntles of ApSRTC in uieu.t of the seruice put in by them ajler reinstatement on O4.O2.2OO3. Bu now petttioners uouLd. haue put in nlore than eight gears ol'seru[ce and adnittedlA theg haue been uorktng os emplogees of the ApSRTC though at one point of tirne it uas '1zooo1 a scc t 1 t5 claimed that theg tuere controct em accepted in the earlier round of litig Supreme Court. loyees, u.thich u)as not tion u.thich went uP to Therefore, respondents are bound to seruices of the PetLtioners in the respo is more than 18 years that theg haue b respectue posts. Therefore, responden the coses of the Petitioners for regul the APSRTC os per the seruice condi exercise shall be completed uithin o the date of receipt of a copg of this Orde nsider regulanzation of ent-Corporation. Now it n since u-'orking in their ore directed to consider tion of tLeir seruices in ns goueming them. This iod of eight week-s from The uit petition is accordingtY directions." ed of uith the aboue The purpose of the above order s to clarify that resPondents a,re bound to consider the regularizatio of services of the Petitioners the re spondent- Corporation ' ereafter, the resPondent Corporation has considered the cases f the petitioners and rejected their representation for regularization vide order dated. I9.O4.2OI2 on the following grounds: Section 7 & 7'A of the Act 2 of Appointments to Public Se staff pattem and Pag stnt regulari-zation of dailg uage emq 994 (A.P. Regulation and and RationaLization oJ re Act 1994) Prohibits Aees ds matter of ight 2 A constitutional Bench of APex C' Karnatka u Uma Deui, RePorted Leld that ntithout follotuing due to oppointment do not conJer an and the Courts cannot direct the or re englgement nor make the urt in Secretory, State of 2006 (scALE)/ (4)/ 197 rocedure/ Rules relating right on the appointees s o rption, r e gu lart z,ation seruices pennanent and / /' l6 the Petitioners cannot cLaim reguladzation unless the recruitment had been done irreq-tlar manner in terms of con sl lt utio nal s che me s. 3 As pr:r APSR?C Emplouees (Rect) Regulations, lLLe requisite qualification J'or the post of Shromic is ITI Dies<:l nechanic. The uacancies are being flled by issuing not{ication. In this r:ase, the Petitioners are not hauing tltc requisite qtaLification. The Petitioners LDere not enqaqed bg the APSRTC by issuing noLrfi.cat ion. Sn Kishan 1l others utere neither recruited against the sanction uacancies in the corporation nor theg possess lhe requisite quoltfications. Therefore in tLrc light oJ'th.e aboue facts and legal position, I consider thot Si Kishan and I l others are not eligibLe for regulaization of their sentices.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners despite being labelled as contract workers, performed the essential tasks on a dailv and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades, as such, their services have to be regularized, and he relied upon the judgment ol the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo Vs. Ilnion o;f Ind.iaz wherein it was held as under: "It is a disconcertinq reality that temporary ernployees, particulorly in gouentment insritu tions, often face nultifaceted forms of exploitation. Wh.ile the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may haue been to oddress slLorl term or seasonal ne:eds, theg haue increasinglg become a mechanism to ' uws (sc) -zoz+-12-80, decided on 20.12.2024 l7 euade long-tern obligotions owed to manikst in seueral utoys: mplogees. These practices Misuse of "Tempora.rTt" Lc'bels: E logees engaged for uork that i-s essential, recurring, ond integ I to the functioning of an ry" or "controch,tal," euen institution are often labeled as "ternpo when thetr roles minor those of gular emplogees. Srlch misclassifccttion depiues uorkers of he dignity, secuitg, and beneftts that regular emplogees re entitled to, despite pe rfctrming identical tasks - Arbitrara Terrnination: Temporary dismissed utithout cause or notice, as This practice undermines the pincipl subjects tr.torkers to a state of constan mplogees are frequently seen in the present case. s of natural justice and insecuity, regardless of the qualitg or duration of their seruice. Ia.ck oJ Careeq Plpgqelsion: Tempo ttrcm-selues excluded from opportuniti promotions. or incremental pag raises. their roLes, creating a sgstemic disparit rerylar counterparts, despite their co ry emplogees often find s for skill deuelopment, The11 remain stagnant in betueen them and their tnbutions being equally significant. Usina Olt tsourcino q-s a Shield: lnsti to outsourcing roles perfonned bg effectiuelg replacing one set of exploit. This practice nol onlg perpetuates demonstrates a deliberate ellort to bgp tions increasinglA resort temporary emplogees, tuorkers u.tith another. exploitotion but olso s the obligation to offer regular empLogment. Basic hts and Bene Denial Temporary emplogees are ofien denied fundamental benefts s ch os pension, prouident fund, health insurance, and paid Leaue euen tuhen their tenure rity subjects them and spans decades. This tack of social allg in cases of illness, their fomilies to undue hardship, espe retirement, or unforeseen cirat mstance s / / l8

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the period of sweeping work done b1, the petitioners on a contract basis for about 2O years is not w,orth for consideration for regularization since the post of Sweeper does not exist in the corporation at present. when Sweeper's position is abolished in the corporation, the question of the availability of sanctioned vaca.cies does not arise.

8. In the light of foregoing arguments, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have been continuously employed on a contractual basis since 2003, pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Apex court, and have bee.r rendering their services for more tha,, two decades ,,r,ith a fond of hope that their servrces would eventually be regularized b-r. the competent authorities in future. In that vieu. o[ the matter, the respondents cannot summariiy terminate the petitioners solel,v on the ground that the sweeper posts have been abolished orving to the fact that the cleaning is imperative in every Depa,rtment. 9 . Where contract workers have served diligentl.y for more than 20 years, the deniar of regularization amolrnts to unfair discrimination' Notwithstanding the formal abolition for their posts, the corporation evidently continues to require such services on a t, 19 daily basis, as the maintenance f cieanliness necessitates the presence of such personnel. 1 0. Taking into account the prin Ples lard down in Jaggo (2na supra), as well as the prolonged and ninterrupted service rendered by the petitioners, the responden are hereby directed to re- consider the petitioners' case as a sp cial case and take appropriate steps to regularize their services wher ver they are Iit. It is however, clarified that the petitioners shall not be entitled to claim any back wages or retrospective service benefits I I . With the above direction, this rit Petition is disposed of There sha,ll be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if y pending, shall also stald closed. //TRUE COP SD/. A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR secrHPorrrcen One fair copy to THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI E NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR (For His Lordship's Ki d Perusal) RAO To, 1 The Vice Chairman cum Managing Direct Hyderabad. 2. The Executive Director Karimnagar, The 3. The Works lvlanager, Zonal Workshop, T 4. 'l 1 L.R. Copies. r, The TSRTC, Musheerabad, SRTC e TSRTC, Karimnagar Q-dd^ / \ The Under S_ec1etary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

6. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Buildings, Hyderabad Library, High Court

7. One CC to M/s. G R. Merdy Vijaya, Advocate [OPUC] B. One CC to Sri Gaddam Srinivas(SC for TSRTC ZONE 2) 9. Two CD Copies TJ GJP loPUCl HIGH COURT DATED:0310712025 \ \ir ') Ar€ :)+ L ) 13 [\Js ?0[ I ORDER f SPr l cr\' ,'/' WP.No.20460 of 2022 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS C,fJ4 %,