Civil Appeal No. 3416-3445 of 2010 · The High Court · 2025 on 16 Jul 2025 — Civil Appeal No. 3416-3445 of 2010

Order

t:3, 2 SN. J IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELA NGANA AT HYDERABAD WRIT PETITION No.18727 OF 2 o2L o/o 16.07.2025 Between: # Sri Mohammed Vazed Ali And $ The State of Telangana & Others Petrtioner Respondents < Gist: > Head Note: ! Counsel for the Petitloner Sri Ch.Ganesh ^Counsel for Respondent No.1 to 3: AGP for Services-lI ^Counsel for Respondent Nos.4 & 5: Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, lea rned stand rng counscl ? Cases Referred: i)(2020) 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) 201o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (201s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc 223 l SN, .I (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2o2O(a)ALD page 379 .:+]j , 4 SN. J HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.18727 OF 2O2L ORDER:

Heard Sri CH.Ganesh, Iearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, Iearned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seekinq oraver as under: "...to issue an order or drrection more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandanrus to direct the respondent herein to convert the full contingent appointment of petitioner made temporarily on compassionate grounds by 4th Respondent in Procs No. B/92/1991 dated 29/06/1997 by regularizing his services tn last grade post as per c.O.Ms.No.6B7 (GAD) dated 03/70/1077 and G.O.Ms. No.661(GAD) dated 23/tO/2008 with eFfect from 29/06/2002 to till date with all consequential monetary benefits including seniority and arrears of pay in the last grade post for 4long years from time to time with 100 Percent compensation by applying principle laid by Apex Court in the case of Union oF India Vs Avta r \-- ) SN, J Chand in Civil Appeal No. 34t6-3445 rf 2010 dt 19/02/?019 under Article 141 of our consti: rtion by this Honourable court for wrongly treating thr: ,Ctitioner as part time employee contrary to appoint,r r nt crder of contingent sweeper by wrongly paying par!: trme \,vages instead of legitimate wages of FTS to th: )cti: oner in violation of Mintmum Wages Act, 194r1 ;rncl Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 by subjecting th., )ctitioner to exploitative enslavement due to his helplt: s condrtions oF poverty Poor social financial political l;:kground in denying his legitimate wages of FTS from 21 lonq years and also award costs of the case and pass.. , 3 petitio Lea rned counsel aDpearrno on -.ha lf of the r placinq reliance o n the averm ent ; made in the a ffidavit filed rn suoDort of the oresen: writ etition articular. to the service:; rendered Dertatnlno ln b petitioner with the resoond ents herein fc r more than a d ecade contends that the petitioner is e r titled for the refief as Draved fo r in the oresent writ petiti )n. PERUSED TH E RECORD:- DISCUSSION AND CONCLU 4. Learned counsel aDpea rt no on t ehalf of the oetitioner sub the subiect issue n the oresent its that N:- ,ri;iE1i, 6 s\. J case rs s r elv covered bv the order of this Court, dated

08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 ol 2OO7 reoorted in 2011(1) ALD, Paqe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O10, dated 1O.O 6.2 O13 and also order, d ated 19.09.2017 Dassed in W.P.N 0.272!7 of 2Ol7 reoorted in 2018 (2) ALD Paqe 282 and also the order dated 21.04.2020 D ed in W.P.N o.23057 of 2O19 re Dorted in 2O2O(4\ ALD Paqe 379.

5. Learned standinq counsel a PPea rin q on behalf of the resDondent No.4 submits that the qrievance of the etationer as u -fo h in the resent Writ P tition had n been addressed to the resD onden ts herein as on date and th erefore the oetitioner cannot com Iain naction on th part of respond ents herein irl considerinq the qrievance of e r) the Detitioner and hence, the relief as oraved for bv the Detitioner in the present Wit petition cannot be qranted and no Man damus can be issued ao ainst the resoondents hereunde r as souqht for nd the Detitaoner mav be direct forth i to out-forth the Detitioner's qflevance as put- the oresent Writ Petition bv wav of a detailed reDres ntation to the resoondents herein and uoon recetDt of the said reo resentation, t e resDondents would 7 SNJ consrder the same tn accordance to Iaw within a reasonable oeriod.

6. Learned counsel aooea rinq on behalf ol the petitioner does not dispute the said submissiorr madq-.1 the learneci standinq counsel a pDea rr nq on behalf of tt e resDonden t No.4

7. The Apex Court in the iudqm ent reoorl( d in (2020 )1 scc L&S) in Prem Sinqh v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, at oa ra 3 6 held as under: "36. There are some of the employees who ira regularized in Spite of having rendered the sr: - 40 or more years whereas they have been sr:p As they have worked in the work-charged -s not against any particular project, their ser.; r have been regularized under the Governmei-,t and even as per the decision of this Cour. Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court decision has laid down that in case servic. s rendered for more than ten years without th( Court's order, as one-time measure, the regularized of sueh employees. In the facts those employees who have worked for ten y( should have been regularized. It would not I regulate them for consideration of regularizati have been regularized, we direct that thet- treated as a regular one. However, it is me ( they shall not be entitledrto claiming any due:; in wages had they been continued in serr before attaining the age of superannuation. I entitled to receive the pension as if they .1 from the reqular establishment and t;l dav t ,/e not bec n ices for 30- lrannuated. ablishment, es ought to in stru ctions in State oF rn the said have been :ove r- of thc' services bc )l'the case, ers or more e proper to )n as others services be e clear tha t :f difference :e reg ula rly rey shall be e services t ev entered t Jrom th y them ,.1:"*.. 8 SN, J the work-charqed esta blish ment shall be counted as oualifvinq service for purDose of pension." a. The Apex Court in the case of D harwad District PWD Literate Dailv Waqe Emolovees Association Vs. State of Karnataka reo rted in L99O(21 SCC Paqe 396 laid princiole that the State should not k a Ierson an te olla ry or adhoc service for lonq period and have to treat s uch persons as reqular one. 9 ar No .53 of the of the iudoment of a P the Apex Court in the State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi, dated 10.04.2006 r Dorted in (2O06) 4 SCc 1 is extracted h ereu nder: - 1 a R12 R.N. Nan unda "53, One asDect needs to t)e clarified. There mav be cases where irreqular aDDointments ( not illeqal aDDointment ) as exolained in S.V. Naravanaooa L967 L972 1 SCC 4091 and B.N. Naqaraian [1979 4) SCC sOTt and referred to in para 15 above, of dulv qualified persqns in dulv sanctione vacant posts miqht have been made and the emolovee s hav e continued to work for t n vears or more but without the lnterven ion of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The ouestion of reoularization of the serv ices of such s mav have to be considered on merits in emDlov the lio ht of the orin ciol6s settled bv this Cour in the cases a bovereferred to and in the lioht of this iudqment. I ontext, the Unaon of India, the their instru men ta I iti es State Governments and to re cho II td +-a k ula ..lz f IM stcrt€ o 9 SN, J I measure, the servi ces of such irrequ l; lv ADDoi nted. who have worked for ten vears or more tn dulv sanctioned oosts but not under cover () orders of the cou rts or of tribunals and should furttr:r ensure th at reqular th ose vacant sanction ed posts that require )b filled up, in cases where temporarv emDlovees r d it wa ers are beinq now em Dloved. The D rocess _ nust be set in motion within six m onths from this da rec ru itme n ts are undertaker to fill i t )

10. The iudqment of the Apex Court dat,3 ) 20.12.2 24 reported in 2024 LawSuit (SC) 1209 in Ja ( qo Anita and others v. Union of India and others an the relevant a pa ra raph Nos.12, 13. 24, 26, 27 and 28 are extracted hereunder: "12. Despite being labelled as ',pil .t-time workers," the appellants performerl these essential tasks on a daily and con t inuous basis over extensive periods, rangirr I from over a decade to nearly two decades Their engagement was not sporadic or terr porary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, r:gular, and akin to the responsibilities t r picaily associated with sanctioned posts. Mo.eover, the respondents did not engage an1 other personnel for these tasks durirr; the appellants tenure, underscorin<y the indispensable nature of their work. T b

13. nd 1 :s that these were not reqular posts {acks n ! rrit, as the nature of the work oerformed _ rv the appellants was perenniat and fundam 5 ntal to the functionino of the ces. The r:curring nature of these duties th eir classification as regular posts, irrespectiv: of how necessitates r,i ,7 t0 SN, J their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set oF workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

24. The landmark judgment of the United Siate in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences oF misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this casc, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It hiqhliohts the iudiciarv' s role in rectifvinq such misclassifications and en urinq that workers receiv fair treatment. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are oFten misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" appointments. "irregular" I I I I I i I II SN, ] It cateqoricallv held that em Dlov!es tn r rreo ular aoo ointm ents. who were ena .; oed in dulv sanctioned Dosts and _;erved continuouslvfor more than ten vears sho u ld be considered for reqularization as _ r one- time measure. However, the laudable r tent, of the judgment is being subverted when in:,t tutions rely on its dicta to indrscriminately rej tct thc clainrs of employees, even in cases wh,t e their appointments are not illegal, but mere y lack adherence to procedural formalities. Gor r rnment departments often cite the judgment in L. r ta Devi (supra) to argue that no vested lht to regu arrzation exists for temporary er lloyr:es, overlooking the judgment,s explicrt ackncrvledgment of cases where regularrz ttion is approprrate. This selective aoolication 1 istorts lhe iudqment's soirit and puroose, eff5 ctive lv weaponrzrn q it aqainst em plovee wh: have ind isoe n sable serv _ over ren d e red deca d e s.

27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for govr rnment departments to lead by cxample in prov r ing fair and stable employment. Engaging work,l s on a temporary basis for extended periods, er: pecially when their roles are integral to the orgarr zation,s functioning, not only contravenes inter tational labour standards but also exposes the orga lization to legal challenges and undermines en ployee morale. By ensuring fair empl, ryment practices, government institution: can reduce the burden of unnecessary tii:i gation, promote job security, and upho d the principles of justice and fairness ttr; rt they are. meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and ;eti a positive precedent for the pravate se:tor to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practicas in the ,: runtry. l I I l, l$ t2 sl.r. r 2A. 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: i. The termination orders dated 2 /.1 0.2018 are quashed; lt. The ap reo u la rised il nts shall be taken back on du forthwith and their forthwith. s e rvrces the aooellant s shall not be Ho WEVET, entitled pecuni arv be n efits / ba ck waqes for the period t worked for but would be entitled to contin u itv of services for the said pefl od and the same would be counted for their post- retira I benefits." have no

11. The Jud q ment of t e Apex Co urt dated 31.01.2025 reoor ed in 2025 IN SC 144 in ..SHRIPAL A ND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM, HAZIABAD", in oarticu lar, the releva nt Dara Nos.15 to 9 are extracted hereu nder: "15. It is manifes t that t e ADDellant Wor men continuouslv r ndered their servic s over severa I vea rs. sometimes sDannrnq more than a decade. Even if certa in muster roll were not orod uced in full, the Emol o er,s re to furn ish such record s- deso ite di recti o-allows an adverse inference la bou r well- stablished den e. In ran abour I disfa o s t3 SN, J I peroetual dailv-waqe or contractual erl Iaqemen ts in circumstances where the work is ermanent in nature. Morallv and leqallv, worker s who fu lfil onqor no municipal reouirem ents vea r after vear cannot be dismissed su mmarilv asi ts ensa b le oa rtic u larlv in the absence of a qenuire contractor aqreement. At this juncture, it would bt: appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinit: "temporary" employment practices as done by a recerr judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India ir the following parag ra phs: -y employment se, reflects a ersely a ffects n the private has led to an arrangements, t, job secu rity, s have been l undermining ons, entrusted ss and justice, to avoid such When public of temporary imental trends also sets a "22. The pervasive misuse of tempor- contracts, as exemplified in this r:, broacjcr systemic issue that ac\ workers' rights and job security. se( lor, lhe rise ol the gig econom'/ increase in precarious employment often characterized by lack of benef t and fair treatment. Such practi(( criticized for exploiting workers a.r labou r standards. Government institUl with upholding the principles of fairr r bear an even greater responsibilit) exploitative employment practices, sector entities engage in misuse contracts, it not only mirrors the det observed in the gig economy brr concerning precedent that can erode g governmental operations. 25. It is a disconcerting reality t lat temporary employees, particularly in governme 1t institutions, oFten Face multifaceted forms of ex: oitation. While the foundational purpose of temporarl contracts may have been to address short-term or s 3asonal needs, they have increasingty become a me(: anism to 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 evade long-tr rm obligations ublic trust in ri-i .::r? .r. , L4 SN. J owed to employees. These several ways: practices ma n ifest in ']tem po ra rv" labelled as reqular em ploYees. . Misuse of "Tem porarv" La bels: Emplo Yees enqa qed for work that is essen tial, recurrinq, and inteqral to th e unctionLinq of a n institution are often "con tractual," even when their roles mirror those of Such wo rkers of the deprives m iscla ssifica ti o n d o n itv, se cu ritv. and benefits that re ular m lo e s are enti dto s ite erfo rm in identical ta s ks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are lrequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state oF constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. . Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees oFten find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and [heir reqular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significa nt. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer reg u lar employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of sociat security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in t.::l SN. J cases of illness, retirement, circu msta n ces. " ( r u nforeseen

16. The High Court did acknowtedge inability to justify these abrupt termination; it ordered re-engagement on daily wac measure of parity in minimum pay. Regr€ perpetuated precarrousness: the Appella nt left in a marginally improved yet still Lr While the High Court recognized the impc work and hinted at eventual regularizat ( afford lhcTn .ontrnuity of service or rTr€dfli-t commcnsurate with the degree of stat evident on record. t he Employer's Consequently, 3s with some .ably, this only y',/orkmen were certa in status. rtance of their n, rt fa lled to [ul back wages rtory violation a nd that they we

17. In light of these considerations, lhe Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workr en stands in violation of the most basic labour law prirr: ples. Once it is established that thcir services were terrr inated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial enq aqed in Disputes Acl, 7947 , essenti al oerennial duties. these wor 3as eannot be releo ated to Deroetual uncertaintv. Ui hile concerns of munici al m liance with b recruitment rules merit consideration, ;uch concerns do not absolve the E mplover of statut c ry obliqations or neoate eouitable entitlemer: ts. Indeed, bureaucratic limita tions cannot trumD :he leqitima te riqhts of workmen who have served <:ontinuously in de facto reoular roles for an extended t eriod. I { , i?!E-jjrti;,r: n t6 S\. J

18. The imou qned order of the Hiqh Court, to the extent thev confin e the ApDellant Workmen to futu re conti nuitv or dail -waqe meaninqful back waqes, is h erebv set aside with the followinq directi ons: enqaqement with ou t 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 senior ity and continuity rn service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within Four weeks from the date of this judgment. (from the date of Their entire oerio d of absenc termination until actual reinstatelnent) shall be counted for continuitvof servrce and all con sequential benefits such as sen ioritv and elioibi litv for o romotion s, if anv. iII. Considering the length of service, the Appellani Workmen shall be entitled to S0% of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date oF their reinstatement. IV. The Resoondent EmDloverisd ed to i n itiate a fair and transDaren process for reo ularizino the Aooellan t Workmen within six date of tatem n consr erino the fact that thev have oerf e on h n ial ties akin n tcl t1 sN, l ,- !. In assessinq requ OSe ( posts. ization, Em Dlover sh all not im ca tion a I or orocedural criteria retroactir llv reo u ire ments were never ap rlied to the Aoo ellant Wo rkmen or to sirrrilarl situated requl ar emolov es in the Dast. fo he exten that sanctioned vacancies for s-g1 hd les ext or are reo u ired. the ResD ondent _.1 :molover shall exD edite all necessa rv ad m inistr l tivED rocesses to ensure these lonqti ITI€ €lTl D t rvees are not in defin ite Ivretained on daily wa es contrar vto statutorv and eq uitable norms. g

19. In view of the above, the appe.rl(;) frled by the workrren are allowed, whereas the appt:: (s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed." L2. The Aoex Court in a iudoment repor_t1 d in (2OL7 )1 tn State f Pur ab and othe Su or me Court Cases 148. vs Ja qiit Sino hando thers at Paras54an its su b- (L)(2 )(3). of the said iudo ment observed a g under: e _l "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, lhile adjudicating upon the above controversy had concludt,d th.tt temporary employees were not entitled to the minimunt :, the regular pay- scale, merely for the reason, that the acti\,,t es carrled on by daily-wagers and regular emptoyees were sii.,i tr. l he fu bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary t:-, ployees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held t n itled to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regu z r emptoyees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the ligh Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereundet:- "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or conl actual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, . appointed after undergoing a selection process based t pon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other r lgible candidates, ,-]di-n,. ; 11 l8 SN, J shall be entrtled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2) But if dailv waqers, ad hoc or contractual apoointees are not appointed aqainst recrular st and their services are sancti ne with notio hreaks- hv the Stafe continuousl r its instrumentalities for a sufficient Gov . for 7O ears such dail wa ers ad iod i. ho or contra ual a ointees shall be entitled to minimum of the reoular oav scale without anv allowances on the a umDtion that work of pereoDia! na ure is available and havin q worked for riod of time an e uitable ri ht is such lon created in such cateoorv of oersons. Their claim for reoularization, if anv, ma v have to be considered seDaratelv in terms of le allv oermissible scheme. aI (3) In the event, a clarnt 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."

13. The iudqment of the Aoex Court report edi n 2010 (9) fK a rnataka and others v SCC 247 between: State M.L.Kesari and others, in particular, oaras 4 to 9 reads as u nde r: 1 f Karna ndered madevi was In

4. The decision in St on 70.4.2006 (re DOrtedin2 Constitutton Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re- engagement nor make their service permanenq and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regubrization, 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 t9 SN, J arrat)qement ot its affairs by the State or tt. ;nstrumentalittes, nor lond thernselves to be tnstruments to tacttt lte thc bypassing of thc canstttLttional and statutory rnancete:.. -ttis Court turther held that a t(.nporary, contractual, casu,t or a daily-wage employee does not have a legat right to bt naoe permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of th,. .,levant rules or in adhercnce of Articles 14 and 16 of the Con\ i ution. This Court howevcr madt: one exception to the abot,i aosttictn and the same is extracled below : ( 7 7 it- ears or for ten "53. One asoec needs to be cla rifit> . There ma b t cases whe lrredular aoooin tmc,t ts (not illeqal a DDo intments) as exola ined inS Narava NADDA [ 7967 (7) SCR 72A1, R.N. antun l a 2 1 1 SCC 4O9l and B.N Naqara ian-D-e )( 4) SCC 5O7I and referred to in oa ra 75 above, f dulVO ua lif ied persons in dulv sanctioned vacant,> )sts mi ht have been made and the emolovees ,, ,e continu ore !,.t ,t withou t the intervention of orders of the courtsor of tribunals. The question of reoulariza ion of the servi es of such emolovees mav have to b, considered on merits in the lioht of thep rincip lc: settled bv this Cou rt in the cases abovereferred to and in the lioht oft his iuda ment. In that contet n on of India, Sta te Governme r instrumente lities should take oulariz eas a one-time measure. the serviees of such irreoularlv aDDointed, who ha ve worked for tt or more ind ulv san tioned D osts but not under cover of orders of t. e courts or of trib u r als and should further ensure that reoular r :ruitments are ? undertaken to fiil those vacant ,nctioned posts , that reouire to be filled UD, I cas tem orarv emD now emDloved. T,he orocess must es et in mo tion ord ailv w thin six m onths from this da te, .. . s and , vears e 1 ! I "5. It is evident from the above that ll ( re is an exception to the general principles against 'regularizat on, enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions aie fulfiltc,, : (i) The employee concerned should have wor k:d for 70 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the bent,it or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. )r other words, the State Government or its instrumentatity sh.r,, d have employed .i':=dFr&* 20 SN, J the employee and continued him in service continuously for more than ten years. voluntarily and (ii) The 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 wilt be consdered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctroned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. ( iii) Umadevi casts a dutv uDon the concerned to take steDs to Govern ment or instru menta litv, reoularize the services of those irreqularlv aooointed emolovees who had served for more than ten vears without the benef it or protqction of a nv interim courts or trib un d ls as a one-tin e measure. Umadev directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months m the date of its decision (re red on 7O.4.2OO 6).

6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc enployees who have been working for more than ten years witltout 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 lJmadevi, cases of several da ily -wage/ad -hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instru mentalities did not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or 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 I 2t SN, J exercise was completed without constderit)-, tlte,tr cases, or because the six month period mentionecl in a z -a li I ot Umadevr has expired. The one-time exercise should r tnsitler att daily_ wage/a d hoc/those employees who had ptt ir) j0 yeats of continoous service as on 10.4.2006 wit,t ,Lit avaiting the protection of any intertm orders of courts ot tt tbunats. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in I ? ns of para 53 of Umaclevi, but did not consider the cases of st:trt e entployees who were cntitled to tlte benefit of para 53 of IJm,). ?vt, the employer conce:rned should consider their cases also, ,); a c()ntinuation of the ona-time exercise. The one time exercist wrll be concluded only when all the employees who are entitlt,,l to be considered in terms of Para 53 of umadevi, are so consitl,, ed. a The obiect behind the said directio.t in para 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to en sure that those who have put in more than en vears ofco tinuous service without the D rotection of anv intertm or7 3rs of courts or tribunals. before the date of dec lston t. I Untadevi was rendered. are considered for reoularizit view of their lono service Second is to deoartmen / instru e ntalities do not )erDe tuate the Dractice of emolovino Derso,rs on dail -wa e ad- for lo o Deflods and tt 2n periodica llv hoc / casua I requla rize them on the around that they have served for more than n vears,therebv defeatins t I e constitutional or statutorv Drovisroas relatinq to r"cruitment and ADDointmen t. The t ee t of the dir,=:tion is that al oersons who have worked for more thar,_ ten vears as on 70.4.2006 (the date of decision in umactr 'vi ) without the Drotection of anv interim order of anv co,! 'tor tribuna t, in vacant Dosts. ossessrrro the reou isite , talification. are ? entitled tobe considered for requla n, The fact that riza ti ( the em olover has not undertak en Stt]h exerct reo ularization within six monthsof the decision in Umadeviorth reoa rd to a limi emD lovees. the riaht to be conside dt < r reqularization rms of the abo ve directi,ons in Umad e ti as a one-time measure- lon tn er gurc that will not Cise ntitle at such e ercrse s un t I

9. These appeals have been pending for mcr ) than four years after the decision in umadevi. The Appelta|t (Zila panchayat, Gadag) has not €onsidered the cases ct respondents of regularization within six months of the deci::t )n in lJmadevi or thereafter. .ffi 22 SN. J

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 wag e/casual/a d -hoc employees servrng the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned rn para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized- If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignorinq or omitting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to :be constdered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years servrce 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. Thts appeal is disposed of accordinglY.

14. In the iudoment of the Apex Court in Nihal Sinqh and others v. State of Puniab reported in (2O13) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a ( 23 SN..I cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadr. ) is a matter exclusively within the authority of the St: te, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but lhose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It a I ;o refused to acceD t the defen ce that there were no sar ction ed posts and so there was iustification for the Sl ate to utilise servl es of laro e number of oeoo le like the aooell ants for decades. It held that "sanctioned oosts dr: not fall heaven" and that the State has to creal e the conscious ch oice on the basis of some ratior r rl assessment of need. Referrin qtoUm a d evi, it held that before them were not arb itrarilv c ose r! aDootn tment was not an I rre ular'aDDoint rent as it ha d been made in acco rd a nce with the statul.r,rv oroced u re DTescri bed under the Police Act, 1 861, ir rd the Stat cannot be heard to sav that thev are not - :ntitled to be absorbed in othes ervtces of the te (n erma nent _ he appellants their initial I srs as a cord i n etr a intm ! ; were purelv ary and not aqainst any sanct ioned DOSTS Crea ted that he iud me t in Umad evt It was hel ! e Stat b I

2.4 SN, J cannot become a licenee for explattatlon by the State and its instrumenta!ities and oergher lhe Governnlgnt of Puniab nor those public sectoLEarkslamontinue such a practice inconsistent with their obliqation to function in accordance with the Co n sti utton. t

15. The n of the A ex Court re orted in 2O15 SCC Online SC 1797 between B.Srinivasulu and others v Nellore Munici or oration Re b its Commissioner Nellore District, Andhra Pra esh and others, in particular paras 7 and 8 reads as under: n en o ht of the a h Court. Th We find it difficu lt to accept the reasonin g allepted bv the (7) ellants to seek req u la rization Atg flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994. The a ellant have been in service of tleJLlst responde\t nat aaly pltpf te the issuance of the said G.O. but even sub seaueLt Lo the issue -.q[ The respondent Municipality berng a statutory G.O. till Toda body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants. B. In the circumgtances, 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 (B) SCC 4BO. 25 SN, J

16. In Ama rkant Rai v State of 8ih r retr! rrted (2O15 )8 scc 265, the Suoreme Court held that The objective behind the exception carved out in this cas€ was to permit regularization of such appointment, whicl are irregular but not illegat, and to ensure appointmr:r rts, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ens ur e securitvof emol ovment of those oersons who had sr:'ved the State Governmerrt an d their in str umentalit ies fo more than ten vears" In that case. emolovee was workirr r 29 vears. This decision a p p roves earlier vtew exoressed in M.L.Kesari extracted above. L7. In State of larkhand v Kamal Pra s;i rd reported in (2014) 7 scc 223 milar view was ta ken bv the Suprem e Court and it was held as follows : "47.... In view of the cateoorical findir. of fact on the relevan tco tentiou ,ssue dent emolovees sDo have continued ,n their service fof mol : than 7O vears continuous lv therefore. 'e laid down bv this Court in Umade v, case tate of Kartt rtaka v Umadevi (2006)45 cc7 2006 scc (L&S) 73 ) at I tara 53 souarelv resent cases. The Divis i ,n Bench of the aDolies to the Hioh Court as rioh that he resDondent emolo yees are entitled the relief, the same cannot be nterfered with bv this Court." the I' al oriflClt l ! ; t. ,,G"{#E 26 sN. j

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed in W.p.No.276O2 of 2019 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2O23 dated 1O.1O.2023 and atso confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2024 in SLp No.32847 ot 2024.

19. The iudomen t of the Aoex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of M aharash tra and Others reoorted in AIR 2O2O Su preme Cou rt 3969 and in particular pa ra Nos.1O0 and 1O1 held as foll ows: "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are d utv- boundtoe xercise su ch ra ublic auth rit ow r where he Gov rn m ent has failed to exercise or has wronglv exerci sed discretion conferred upon it bv a sta tut ,oraru le, or a poli cy decision of the Governme nt or has exercised such discretion mala fide irrelevant consideration. or on

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.,, )7 SN. J

20. The Division Bench of this Court in its ludqmen t dated 10.06. 2013 D assed in W.A.Nos .782 c'1 2O10 and 854 of 2O12 whil e upholdinq the Judq ment da I ed O8.09.201O passed in W.P.No.24 377 of 2OO7 and c.C. rlo.48 f 2008 observ ed as under:- "Furthcr, it is manifest from the material oI recoTd that the serviccs ol the slmilarly olaced persons who,r{ proachod the law Courls were regularized. The appellant-Col) ) a[ion also issued various office orders/circuiars dated 20.i2. L )89, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for reqularization of casual/ct)nlract employecs, It rs also to be s, , , I th-at Section 25- T of thc ID Act Drohibits unfair labour pract r r by any cmployer or workrnan. As can be scen from the fact r I scenario of the cases lr- l-rand, engaging the respondents l( r such a long and continUoLrs period of time on casual basis i.; rothing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions o[ c r ction 25-T of the ID Act.-i-lre learned Single Judqe while relyrr < on the decisions of thc Apcx Court, rightly held that the resp,-: lents are cntiued to rcgul,lrization as directed in the impug.c J orders, as the learned ,rngle Judge considered all the aspc( t; oF the matter in detail, in thc propcr perspectivc, which, in O r. considered view does not warrant interferencc tn these appeal,; ', 2L. The Di vtst n Bench of this Co urt irr its J udq men t 19.o9.2017 Das ed in W.P.No.2 7 2L7 of 2OL7 t Dara 6andoara 18 reDortedin2O 18 ( 2) ALD o e2 2a J observ ed as under:- '16. It is trite that the law dectared by the binding throughout the country under Art Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that judgment in tlma Devi,s case (supra), n r provisions oF Act 2 of L994 and G.O. 22.4.1994, were in existence. The Suprt: ^/s denouncing the practice of regularization arr persons, who entered service through back r )upreme Court is cle 141 oF the by the time the s rendered, the , No.212, dated 1e Court, while I absorption of f oors by giving a "='r";A:**+i.***Effi ]Q SN, J go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time a bsorptio n/reg u Ia rrzatio n of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O. 1.4s. No.212, daLed 22.4.1994, whilc giving directions in Para No.53 of thc judgmenl in Uma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning reg u la riza tion/a bso rption exlst. Therefore. Act 2 of 1994 1OO and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, do not whittle down the width and the the directions issued bv the lower the traiectorv of Suoreme eqlJlt in ?ara 53 of its iudqment in Uma Devi's case (suora). It is, therefor e, not oermissible for the resoondents to take shelter under Act 2 ot L994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.t994 to denv requ larization to f h criteria la id down ln ParaN .53 of the iudqment in Uma Devi'Lcase ( supra ). nt in Man ula B hini's case su ra satisfi dth ad m itt dl d sn o r t e ton I

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2017, in OA No.1442 of 20L4, on the file of the Tribunal is set asidc and the writ tion to the respondents to calrslde! leq llarisatioo sf thqservices of Insoectors and aDDoint them subiect to their satisfvinq the criteria laid down in Pa ra No.53 of the iudoment in Uma Devi's case (suor ).7his orocess must be comoleted within two months from the date of receipt of a coov of this order." wt h h e a

22. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment dated 21.O4.2O2O oassed i n T.A .Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.N o 230 5 7of 2o19 reDorted in 2O2O(4)ALD Daqe 379 at oaras 45, 48 and Dara 5O obse rved 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 29 SN. J c the year 2000. They have been continuou:;1 workinq without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 ti I , ate. 48. It is not known whv the 1st rest, Indent has not followed the decision in Uma Devi's r;, se (suora ), as exo Iained in M.L. Kesari's case (s uora) a d undertak en a one-time exercise of DreDarino the I ist of da ilv waqe emol ovees who had worked for m re th:rr ten (10 ) vears with out the intervention of the Co urts an Tribuna ls as on 1O.4.2006 and subi ct them to a rocess \ erif ication as to wh eth er thev are workino aanst vali ant posts and oossess requisite o ualificati ons for the osts, and if so, requla rize their servi ces. 50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allor.r , j; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passcd by the tst r(. rondent re.]eiting the rascs oF petltioners for regularizalron o services on one trme basis are declared as illeqal, arbitra./ and violative of Articlc1, 1.1, L6 and 21 of the Constitu j c I o:- India; the resDon dents are directed to req ularize or one-time basis petitioners' Servrces f rom th e date each ,) the oetitioner s comDl ete 10 vears of s rvice on dailv ,uao s from the initial dates of their aoDointment . But, r ev shall not be entitled to anv mon ta rv relief. The said xercise shall be done within two (2 ) weeks fro mthed te of recei Dt of coDv of th e order. " :l I

23. Th is Cou rt o ines that in the pres ent case, the resDonden ts failed to discharqe their dut the request of the oe titioner for re ularization of xamtntn l 2 I me sweeDer oetitioner's servic es who is workinq as fu ti and fu rther to consider his reou est to trea the te service of the petitioner in the last qrade I )st of full swe er as reo ular one for all ourooses [, I qrant nq last qrade pav w ith oeriodical tncrem ent revis' I from timeto DOra rv I t \ ...-*,*g**"#i# l0 :JN, J time from the date of aDDointmen of the Detition er, rn a cco rda nce to law.

24. This C o rt ooines that Detitioner is entitled for consideration of oetition er's case fo lief as oraved for in the present Writ Petition in view of the obse rvati ons of the Aoex Court in various rant of the udqments ( referred to and extracted above) and the view of the Division Bench of this Court in the Judq m ents referred to and extracted above.

25. Takino into co ns id era tion: - a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made Lry the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: -... i)(2o2o) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Pase 396 (iii) 202s rNSC 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 =r' '!i.: 3I SN, J (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(s) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Ontine SC t797 (ix) (201s) 8 SCc 26s (x) (2014) 7 Scc223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 Scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (r) ALD, page 234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(a)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of thir; Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.7BZ of 2C.O and 854 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment da,:,:ct Og,O9.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C. {o.48 of 200g (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of thi:; Court dated L9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.p.No.i72L7 ol 2C: 7 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of thi:; Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O ir 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23057 ol 2OL9 (referred to and extr rcted aFove). g) In the light of discussion and conclusi() I as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the presr: lt order. l; ! ,si.ent.' ',.,d*i[ .,,tIe- ...;iBititl,:,, ,,:.:; r rsd"r. - r&*.,..,.,;clb;.,:"*l*id*.. 32 SN, J The Writ Petitao ts allowed, the Detitioner IS directed to put-forth the claim of pe tioner for reoul arizatio n of Deti t ioner's service ,anda lso the n ln t Letit ry ser of the petition er to treat the tempora vices of the 5t qra de post of Sweeper as requ la r one for all ouro oses bv o ra nti n o Iast o rad EDAVl,v th oeri od ica I increments revi sed from time to tim e from the da te of aoDointment of the oetitioner and all co nseo ue ntial dulv enclosin q all the relevant documents rn benefits r u -forth in he or of etiti ner's ca eas writ oetition, within a oe riod of o ne (O 1) week from the date of recerDt of coDv of the order and the resDon dents shall examine and co n sid er the same in a ccord a nce to law, in conformitv with pri nci Dles of natural i ustice bv provi ding an ooDortu nitv of oersonal hearino to the in terms of orders oassed bv the Sup reme Detitio ner m Uma D vi's ca r 20 scc P e1 \ the udqment passed in W.P.N .24377 t 2007 oa.o9.2(} 1O reoo rte in 2O LL( 1 ALD. ,Paoe ) co nfirmed in W.A. N 782 of 2o10 d te 234 andas :Hi d 10.06.2 1o 3 and a lso as oer lvt s on Bench .I ud o m of thi Court s , ,1*, .j!*il .::,,).. --u;J:- g ..# \ \ -,,r1. ;,.}r;l!l . L-. l l l I r.l l i l 33 SN, J L9.O9.20L7 Da ssed in W.P.No.272L7 ot 20 7 reported in 2018(2)ALD pacre 282 and also the [) vision Be nch Judqment Of this Court dated 2L.O4.2A'. O passed in ( I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 in W.P.No.2 7 of 2O19 reDorted in 2O2O( ALD oaoe 379 whicl. had attained )4 fi na Iitv within a oeri od of four (O 4 weeks Fr m he date receipt of a coov of this ord er, I' takinq into consid ration the ob servations and the lavu I id down b the Apex Court in the various iudo ments ( I 'I :ferred to and particular extracted above). and in iudqment of the Apex Colrrf in fhe cas 1 of State of Karnataka v Uma Devi and dulv conr nunicate the d ecisio ntotheo itioner. However, ther t shall be no para No.53 of order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendin! in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as tbove Witness THE HON'BLETHE CHIEF JUSTICE APAREIiI I KUMAR SINGH, WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF J JLY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVT I Sd/-A.II S. GOWRI SHANKAR STANT REGISTRAR tr1, //TRUE COPY// ,J \ ECTION OFFICER one fair copy to THE HoN'BLE MRS JUSTICE S&rr pAUt NANDA (For Her Lordship's Kind Perusal) To, ...;q , 1. 1 ', LrR. Copies. 5 is-!44 cil1alu -Jus- ce and 'Com v i.:..*.

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

1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayathraj Department, Telangana Secretariat, T.S.,Hyderabad.

2. The Principal Secretary to Govt., Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat, T.S., Hyderabad

3. The District Collector, and Chairman of District Selection Committee and Minimum Wages Committtee of Yadadri Bhongir District, TS.

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Yadadri-Bhongir District, TS,

5. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Valigonda tvlandal, Yadadri- Bhongir District,TS.

6. One CC to SRl. CH. GANESH, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

8. One CC to SRI KATTA PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR TS ZILLA PARISHADS[OPUC]

9. Two CD Copies BM PMK .a,.i'.': i;, HIGH COURT \ l DATED:1 610712025 CC TODAY .Ft I t ORDER WP.No.18727 of 2021 /t, l! (.' t! \.; I I ) SE{ 1 t ) IIij il1 i t::l.f..: 't( C ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WII'{OUT COSTS $ $ r€ ,liiEfu-,. ...*Ar. .15lii -,.ii*r-,i".-. .-d.n