PWD Literate Dailv Waqe Emplovees Association vs Court in the State of Karnataka and others Vs.

Judgment

4. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayathraj Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad The Commissioner of School Education, Govt. of Telangana, Hyderabad. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Adilabad. The tVlandal Parishad Development Officer and Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Mandal Praja Parishad, Kadam, Nirmal District. 5 The Chief Executive Officer, Nirmal, Nirmal District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affldavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents is not paying full time sweeper wages as per the appointment orders dated.2B.10. t987, of the petitioner, inspite of submitting proposal by the MEO, Kaddam, decade back for regularization of services asper G.O.Ms.No.212 dt. 25-11-1993' in clear vacancies of last grade in 3rd respond ent zPP and denying legitimate wages on par with colleague Full Time Sweepers and denying regularization of his services as per G.O.Ms.N0.212 dt.25t11t1993, since 33 long years by violating the Article 14,16,21and 43 of our constitution as unjust, unfair in subjecting the petitioner for explOitative enslavement since three decades and prays to direct the respondent herein to pay ther full time contingent sweeper wages as paid to his colleague full time sweepelrs urorking in Panchayat Raj schools from time to time w.e.f., 28-10- 1987, to till rlate with arrears with all consequential monetary benefits and arrears of pay with 100 percentage, penalty against the respondent departments as ordered by the Hon'ble High Court in the similarly situated cases with further direction to Regularize the services of the petitioner as per G.O.tVs.No.212, dt. 25111/1993, by treating Petitioner as full ,time contingent sweeper as per the proposals of the IVEO, Kaddam, to 3rd respondent on completion of his five years services frorn the date of his initial appointment with effect from 28-10-1992, with all consequential monetary benefits including seniority and arrears of pay by awarding exemplary costs against the respondents department. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent herein to pay the full time sweepers wages to the petitioner as paid to l'ris colleague Full Time Sweeper working in Panchayath Schools as per his appr>intment order in Proc. No.P1|ESTT/87, dt.2811011987, on par with colleague full time sweepers working in the Panchayat Schools from time to time forthwith and continue to pay salary with all allowances of last grade post till regularization of the services of the petitioner. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH. GANESH Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 2: AGP FOR SERVICES-I Counsel for the Respondents No.3 & 4: SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, S.C. FOR ZPP & MPP The Court nrade the following: ORDER J SN,J w.P.No.19062 0f 2()20 THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.19O52 oF 2020 OR DER: Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Kata, learned Standing Counsel for ZPP and MPP appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4. 2 e roa h s Draver as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents is not paying full time sweeper wages as per the appointment orders dated 28.lO.l9B7, of the petitioner, inspite of submitting proposal by the MEO, Kaddam, decade back for regularization of services as per G.O.Ms.No.212 dt. 25-ll-L993, in clear vacancies of last grade in 3rd respondent ZPP and denying legitimate wages on par with colleague Full Time Sweepers and denying regularization of his services as per G.O.lvls.N0.212 dt. 25/ll/1993, since 33 long years by violating the Article 14, L6, 4 SN,J W.P.No.19O62 of 2020 21 and 43 of our constitution as unjust, unfair in subjecting the petitioner for exploitative enslavement since three decades and prays to direct the respondent herein to pay the full time contingent sweeper wages as paid to his colleague full time sweepers working in Panchayat Raj schools from time to time w.e.f., 28-10-1987, to till date wi:h arrears with all consequential monetary benefits and arrears of pay with 100 percentage, penalty against the respondent departments as ordered by the Honourable High Court in the similarly situated .cases with further direction to Regularize the services of the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dt. 25/tl/1993, by treating Petitioner as full time contingent sweeper as per the proposals of the MEO, Kaddam, to 3rd respondent on completion of his five years services from the date of his initial appointment with effect from 28- 10-L992, with all consequential monetary benefits including seniority and arrears of pay by awarding exemplary costs against the respondents department and pass...."

3. Learned counsel aooeanno on behalf of the nce on h m n affidavit filed in suooort of the oresent writ ertaini n es rvl rendered bv oetitioner with the resoonden ts herein for rmore than a decade co ntends that the oe itioner is entitled for he relief as Draved for in the oresent writ Detitign= PER USED THE REC RD:- 3 ) SN,J W.P.No.19062 of 2020 DISCUSSION A D CONCLUSION:- 4 t'lF tition r <l hrnits that th a cr rlriari f + h ssue tn t h present case is squarelv covered bv the order of this Court, d ted O8.09.2O1O oassed in W.P.No. 24377 ot 2OO7 reoorted in 2011(1) ALD, Paqe 234 as

nfirmed in W.A. o.782 of 2O1O. dated 10.06.2013 and also order. dated 19.09.2O1 7 Dassed in W.P.No. 272L7 ot 2017 reoorte in 2018 (2) ALD Paoe 28 2 and also the order, d ted 21.04.2O2O oassed in W.P.No. 23O57 ot 2O19 reoo rted in 2O2O(4) ALD Paqe 379.

5.L earned standino counsel aooearino on behalf of the reso ndent Nos.3 & 4 submits that the qrievance of the Detitioner as out-forth in the ore nt Writ Petition had not been addressed to th resoondents herein a on date and the ore, the oetition r cannot comolain inaction on the oart of resoondents herein in considerino the orievance of the petitioner and hence, the relief as praved for bv the petitioner in the oresent Wit oetition cannot be qranted and no can be issued r 6 sN,l w.P.No.19062 0f 2020 hererr nder as sou oht for a ndt hert et t oner ma V be direc'ted to ut-forth the Detitioner's qrlevance as Dut-frrrth in the Dresent Wr t Petition bv aVofa ed reDresentation to the resoondents herein u onr a.aii'rf esenta ton fh e ct .rf .l r t r ndents would consider the same in a ccorda nce to law. withi a reasonable oeriod.

6. Learned counsel aDDe rinq on behalf of the Petiti,cner do s not disDute t e said submissi on made lea rn d standino cou sel aDDearino on behalf of the resDondent No .3&4.

7. The Aoex Court in the iudqment reported in 202 ) 1 SCC (L&S) in Prem Sinqh v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, at oara 36 hel d as under: '36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the :;ervices for 30-40 or more years whereas they have treen superannuated. As they have worked in the lvork-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and €rven as per the decision of this Court in State of l(arnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have L'een rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the 7 SN,J W.P.No.19062 of 2O2O services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them rioht from the day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension."

8. The Apex Court in the case of Dharwad District PWD Literate Dailv Waqe Emplovees Association Vs. State of Karnataka reoorted in 199O(2) SCC paoe 396 laid principle that the State should not keep a person in temoorarv or adhoc service for lonq oeriod and have to treat such oersons as regular one. o Drrr Na E? rrf tha af tlra ittAa nf tha Arrav Court in the State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi, dated 1O.O4.2OO6 reported in (2OO6) 4 SCC 1 is extracted hereunder:- "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irreqular apoointments (not illeqal aDDointments) as explained in S.V. 8 sN,l W,P.No.19062 of 2020 r 5 s! r196 7 (L) v edv ant Nar vanaD scR 128't. R.N (1) Scc 409 I and B.N. Nan iundaooa lL97 Naqaraian I L979 (4 scc so 71 and referred to in hav been mad and the em lovees have conti n ued to wor ten vears or more but witho the intervention of orders of th cou sor f trib na ls. The ou stion of reoul rizationofthe servt esofs uch b tn the lioh t of the onncr les se led bv this C urt s aboverefer dto nd in he liohtof ln he ca iudo ent, n tha context, th Unio ia. t Ind tns umentalities should take steos to req ula r,2e as a one-time the servr sofs uch lr qularlv aoDol ted. who have worked for ten vear s or more in dulv sa nctio ed oo ts but not under cover of orde oft he courts or of tribunals a nd shoul further ensu re that reo ular e n e h uiretobe filled uo,tn sanctioned DOSTS that s waqers a must be this date. .... beinq now emoloved. T e Dro otion within six m nths f teG vernm ents m t n r

10. fhe tud ment oft EAD xCo urt d ted 20.L2 .2024, re rted in 2O 4 LawSuit(SC ) 1209 tn JaoocrAnita a nd othersv.Un ion of f ndia and others, e relevan Da rao raoh N s.12. 3.24. 26.27 and 28 are extracted hereunder: ''12. Despite being labeiled as ,,part-time rvorkersr" the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensave periods, 9 SN,J W.P.No.19()62 of 2020 ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. r nnial nts w

13. The claim bv the resoondents that these were not reoular oosts lacks merit, as the na ure of the work Derformed bv fundamental to the functionino of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy 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 State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)] serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular r0 sN.J W.P.No.19062 of ZO2O ernployees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted tfre practice of hiring temporary employees or inrlependent contractors as a means of a\ oiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. Thi; judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, snoufJ determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It hi qhlio ts the . iudi cia rv' c c s n w rk ns r n t e !t receive fair treatment. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of bar:kdoor 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 Uetween "iliegal" and "irregular,' appointments. o irreqular o w a aDDOint en an ron f n o u la rization as ao e-time n a f easure. Hovrever, the laudable intent of the judgmeni is being subverted wh en institutions rely on its dicta to indiscrimin ately reject the claims cf employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack ,adherence to procedural formalities- ,3overnment departments often cite the _udgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that tlo vested right to regularization eiists for t.emporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment oi casei IN h s 1t SN,J W.P.No.19062 of 2O2O where regularization is appropriate. This lec tve a weaoonizino effectivelv emolovees ind is oen sable services over decades. n dis aoainst rend ered

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 internationa I labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and faarness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with internationa! standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. 28. In view of the above discussion and Findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated

27.]-O.2OlB are quashed; ii. The apoellants shall be taken back on dutv forthwith and servace t2 SN,J W.P.No.19062 of 2O2O forthwith. a n w n n r e e e t h o retiral benefi Howev f, n en il c b u r r od e f n fo th

11. T e Ju q ment oft he Aoe 5 2 1 2 5 Cou x.t 1 4, R PA A OT E A N A I rcula r, the relevantD ara Nos.15 1 a re extracted hereunder: '15. It ts man ife tthat the AD lantWorkmen n u n er v severalv ears so metimess a nnino more thana e e. Ev c r o Drod uced in full theEm ployer's failure tof urn rsh s chrecords-de soite direction to doso-a !lows nad er a r el -e I h s e d n I R u o v r u a e r n e en ts oerma nent work rs n h m s r inn tu re. Moral lv andt qal v, nq inq mun lctD al t t Ifit e h n s e s r s n a I d 13 sNrJ W.P.No.19O62 of 2O2O in the absence of a oenuine contractor aqreement. 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 greatef':responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: i- t4 SN,J W,P.No.19062 of 2()20 s m lo m I rror ften I that r d esoite oerformi nq identica! .Mi suse of "Temoora rv" Labels: Emo lovees eno oed for work ls essential, recu rnno, an d inteoraIto the funct ioninq of n ar "tem orarv or "contract al." even when those of uch misclassification deorives emD lovees. workers of the diqnitv. secu ratv. and en fi enti led to, tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. . Lack of Career progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally sign ificant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular em ploym en t. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to l5 SN,J w.P.No.19O62 of 2020 undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engage.ment on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record. L7. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev were enoaqed in essential, oerennial duties, these workers cannot be releoated to oeroetual ncerns o n and comoliance with recruitment rules merit con sideratio n, such concerns do not absolve the Emolover of statutorv obliqations or neoate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic the leoitimate riohts of limitations cannot trump . While l6 SN,J W.P.No.19062 ot 2O2O workm en fa cto requl r roles foran exte ded oeriod. ho have served con tinu uslv tn de eim uq ned ord er of the Hiqh Court, to the 1a. Th extent thevconfi ne the Ap ellant Workmen to future ith ut b enq aqe ent a ilv-wao e e id wt h h k tn dir n I e n a h I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes e.t, iS+7,'is declared illegal. All orders or .o.h*i.ution, terminating their services are quashed- consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the Oate oi their termination, for all purposes, ,JrO-i"q seniority and continuity in service. - II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appella nt Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within fou r weeks from the date of this judgment. 1II. .Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entiUed to SOV"- of the back wages from the date of tfreir discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. Tlu Respondent Employer shall cf "ar. lf,L aloresaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. e t7 SN,J W.P.No.19062 of 2020 h m n n m n In ass IV. The Resoondent E o overt s directedt o initiate a fair and transparent process for reqularizinq the ADDe llant Workmen within ofr insta ment dulv considerinq the fact that they haye performed oerennial municioal duties akin reqularization, the Emplover shall not impose educationa! or procedural criteria retroactively if such reouirements were never aoolied to the ooellant Workmen or to similarlv situated reqular emDtovees an the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are reouired, the Resoo dent Emolover shall exoedite all necessarv administrative processes to ensure these lonotime emolovees are not indefinitelv retained on to statutorv and dailv waqes contra equitable norms.

19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed." L2. The Aoex Court in a iudq ment reoorted in (2017) 1 Suoreme Court Cases 148. in State of Puniab and others vs Jaqiit Sinqh and others at Paras 54 and its cr rh-6, rrc f l, 1 lf?l 2 nf th a crid i r rdar men i arheairraal as under: "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scale, merely for the reason, t8 SN,J W.P.No.19062 of 2020 that the activities carried on by daity-wagers and regular employees were similar. The fu bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who felt in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the m.inimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the fult bench-of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereundei_ "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee ag-ainst the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed a-fter undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to att other eligible candidates, shat! be entitted to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. Bu a t e h n n san tioned continuou lv, with no tional brea Sta ts and their ervrces are a bv the Government or its in rumen lities dailv wao rs. ad hoc or cont, ctual DDOIN es sha be ent tled to of the reoular Dav scale without a v all' wances t ssr, I h Their claim for such cateoorv of Derson red lanz,ati n. n ch l, a vh f ti. d s n , oermissible scheme. ifa n s e a (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 emptoyee snJi rc entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months." 13. 'l'he iudo ent of the ADex Court 9 c2 b n Kar Oorted ln t l9 SNrJ W.P.No.19O62 of 2020 others v M.L.Kesari and others, in particular, paras 4 to 9 reads as under: 4, The decision in State of_K. re_td-eL'_ed on 10.4.2006 (reported in 2006 (4.) SCC 1). ItL that case a Constitution 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 permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the Sfate or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the abov.e position and the same is extracted below : "53. One asoect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illeoal apoointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa f 7967 (7) SCR 7281. R.N. Nanjundappa [7972 (7) SCC 4O9] and B.N. Nagaraian 17979 (4) SCC 5O7l and referred to in para 75 above of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts miaht have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten vears or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the liqht of the principles settled bv this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this 20 sN,J W.P.No.19062 of 2O2O f d "5. It is evident from the above that there rs an exccption to the general principtes against .regularization, en.u.n.ciated in Umadevi, if the following ,oidition, ure fulfilled: 'i) The employee concerned shoutd have worked for 10 ./ears or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. ;n other words, the Sfafe Government or its tnstrumentality should have employed the emptovee and <:ontinued him in service votuntariiy and continuously for rnore than ten years. (il fhe appointment of such emptoyee shoutd not be itlegal, even if irregular. Where the appoirt.iiis are not ntade or continued against sanctioned or ihere the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qya lifications, the appointments wilt 6e considere,d to be il;egal...But where the person employed posseisea tfre p;escribed qualifications .and was working against sdnctioned posts, but had been selectei without u,tdergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. 'posts 2t SN,J W.P.No.19062 of 2020 be set in mo n within six months fro its decrs, n frendered on 70.4.2006 the date of

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 employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in lJmadevi, cases of several daily -wage/ad - hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instru menta lities did not commence the one-time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of lJmadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-wage/adhoc/those emploYees who had put in 70 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 5i of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered.

8. The obiect behind the said direction in Dara 53 of at those Umadevi is two- fold, Fi. t is to ensure who h ve Dut in m re t,han ten vears of con nuous 22 f a e e SN,J W.P.No.19062 of 2020 n n a m rl, n considered e ,n u ities o e was ren vi' e Umadevi e r e e I h e s e ,n e re tino to re ruitm ent a dao tn ent. The true 'he o da eof ecrsiontn made vi) wi,thout the o rotection f a a di, o o a m u r, 7 al., a e id, t o f ton ,n Umadevi or th t such exerctse was will ot , s, u rrz, e , , t n a e d

9. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in lJmadevi. The Appettant (Zila aant:hayat, Gadag) has not considered ihe cases of .espondents of regularization within six months of the lecision in Ltmadevi or thereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that ,.he cases of respondents shoutd be consiierea in ,tccordance with law. The onty further direction that needs oe given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zita panchayat, rladag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casuat/ad_hoc etmployees serving the Zita panchayat aid if so whether ::uch. employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of t_lmadevi. If they tulfill them, their services have to be regularized. if such an exercise has already been underta[en by ignoring or cmitting the cases of respondents I to 3 beciuie of the pendency of these cases, then their casei ,i)it iuu" to o. considered in continuation of the ,uia 7i.J'exercise -ini 23 SN,J W.P.No.19O62 of 2O20 within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of lJmadevi, their services 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 appeal is disposed of accordingly. I Sinqh L4. In the i dqment of the Dex Court in Ni and others v. State of Puniab reported in (20I,3) 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 cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authority of the state, but if the state did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also refused to accept the defence that 24 SN,J W.P.No.19O62 of 2020 r w r d i ustil ca number of Deo Dle like the a Dpellants for d held at" d e a des from eav and that the State has to create thembva co nscr ous choic on sof mer e need. Referri n o toU madev it held that th E ADDella nts befor,3 th m were not a rbitra rilv ch sen, th apooi ntment w snota qular' eir initial n oDorn ment sit lleen made rna corda ce wa h the statu ory Drescribed under the Police Act. 1461. and u te cannot be heard to sav that thev are not be a bsorbed into the services oftheS tate enti tlerd t rmanent basis as, a rdinq to it, m w I u t m a n a atn anv sa nctioned oosts created b the State. It wa s held that the iudom ent in Umadevi c c becom a f b e d s P u n r G m o o B n n 25 SN,J W.P.No.19062 of 2O2O such a practice inconsistent with their obligation to function in accordance with the Constitution.

15. The judgment of the Apex Court reoorted in 2015 SCC Online SC 1797 between B.brinivasulu and Commissioner, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh and others, in particular paras 7 and I reads as under: (7) We find it difficult to acceot the reasoning adopted by the High Court. The rioht of the appellants to seek reoularization flows from the G.O. No.21-2 dated 22.4.1994. The appellant have been in service of the first respondent not onlv prior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subsequent to the issue of G.O. till today. The respondent Municipality being a statutory bodla is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above .meintioned 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 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 this Court in District was laid down by Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (B) SCC 480.

16. In Amarkant Rai V State of Bihar reported (2O15) 8 SCC 265. the SUoreme Court held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case 26 SNrJ W.P.No.19O62 of 202O was to permit regularization of such appointment, whictr are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointrrrents, which are irregular but not illegat, and M.L.K,esafl extracted above. (_2O_14) 7 SCC 223. similar view was taken bv the Suoreme Court and it was held as follows : l'47.... In view of the categorical finding of fact on lil.:elir'lvrnt .ont"ntiout irtu" th"t th" ,"tpond"nt gmolovees have continued in their service for more !'han 7O vears continuously therefore. the legal principle laid do*n by this Court in Umadevi case l'State of Karnataka v Umadevi (20O6) 4 SCC I : 2OO6 liCC (L&S) 73) at para 53 squarely appties to the etresent cases. fne fias rightly held that the respondent employees are antitled for the relief the same cannot be interfered yvith by this Court."

18. Tlre Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.ZOZ2 passed in W.P.No.276O2 of 2O19 which pertains regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi 27 SNrJ W.P.No.19062 of 2O20 Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2A23 dated

10.10.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated 09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.

19. The iudqment of the Apex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 and in particular oara Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows: * 100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are dutv-bound to exercise such power, where the Government or a public authoritv has failed to exercise or has on conferred uDon it wronqlv exercised di bv a statute rlr A rule- or a nolicv d citrn nf fhe Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide, or on irrelevant consideration.

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 publlc authority."

20. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment dated 10.06.2013 passed i W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O and 854 of 2O 12 while upholding the Judgment dated 28 SNrJ W.P.No.19O62 of 2O20

08.01, .201O Da inW .P.No.2437 7 of 2OO7 and C.-C.llo.48 of 2OO8 observed as under:- "Further, it is manifest from the material on record that the senrices of tne similarly placed persons who approached the law courts were regurarized. The appellant-corporation also issued various office orders/circulars dated 20.r2.1989, 11.09. L992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for regularization of casual/contract employees, Ii is also to be seen that Section 25-T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for such a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of section 25-T of the iD Act. The learned single Judge while relying on the decisions of the Apex court, rightly herd that thJ respondents are entitled to regularization as directed in the impugned orders, as the learned single Judge considered all the aspects of the matter in detlil, in t6e proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals.,t 2L.

19.09. 2017 Da sed in .P.No.27 2L7 of oL7 n m reDo in 2O1 (2)ALD oe 282 at ra 16a Dara 18 observed as under:- "16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the tlonstitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the .udgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the lrrovisions of Act 2 of L994 and G.o. Ms. No.212, dated ?-2.4.L994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while rlenouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by lyiving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for ttppointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one- time absorption/regularization of those, who were working )L) sN,J W.P.No.19()62 of 2O2O for a period of not less than 10 years it has given directions in thrs i-egard to all the State Governments arld also Union of india. The Supreme Colrrt is trrr:sutmecj io be conscious of various State enactments st:cit as Aci 2 of L994 and execuriive orders such as G.C. M:;. No.212, dated 2.2.4.L994, wtriic Aivinq directions in Par.r i'io.53 ci thc .ludgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). But slrll, tt has rlot made any exceDtion in favour of thc Stares where State enactments banning regularization/absor-otion exist. Therefore. Act 2 of 1994 1O0 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, do not whittle down the width and shini's case (suora). does the iudqment in Maniula not lower the trajectorv of the directions issued bv the Supreme Court in Para 53 of its judqment in Uma I)atti'c for the resoondents to ta e shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, to deny rml ccilrla /crrnrrl +ha.afa Tf ic .2ca r a hr v admittedlv. satisfied the cr:teria taid down in Para No.53 of the iudqment in Urna Devi's case ( suora). LB. For the aforementioned reasons, r-lrder, dated 27.6.2017, in OA No.1442 of 2014, on tlte file oi the Tribunal is set aside and the Wiit o€tition isl, allowed with the direction to the resoondents to consider ices of the oetitioners reqularisation of the se aqainst the existinq vacancies of Work Insoectors t to their satisfvinq the and aoooint them subi criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the judqment in 2 \ Fra I lma /cttn onths f rom the date of comoleted within two receiDt of a of this order." nr^aocc llatti'c Thi r2ca r

22. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment dated 21.O4.202O oassed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23057 of 2O19 reoorted in 2O2O(4)ALD paqe 379 aras 45, 48 and Dara 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) ,-l-1 i-' ,':i:|},1 ,j +il 30 SN,l W.P.No.19062 of 2O20 years of service by 'i.,'.,. They have becri'r givcn ilinimum time-scale frorn t irt ycar 2000 Tirc.y have been c,lntinuously workir.J r,,,itt-rout any cclrir-i orrici-s in thr-ir- favour fr-orn 1990 tiii clltr_.. n w 4A- h follo wed the decision in Um a Devi's cas e (supra ) as ( suor a) and c und rtaken a one-tim e exerct of Dre ailnq the list m r dent ha K r n a a t rV

4. n qualifications for the o sts, and if so, _re_gqla_rizelheir servtces. n n

50. Accordingly, the rn,r-it pctitloit is aiioi.;,.:rj; tlt.r tiit;tugneci orders dated 20.8.2019 passcd by 'Litr.: I sL irtsDondcnl rejecting the cases <.ri pCtitioiterS lor rr.:rJul;rr.i;tcttion oi servtces on one-time basi s ar-c declarcd as illcqat. ai-brtrary ard violative of Articles 1 4, 16 and 21 of ttre Constrt-ution of In dia; on me ba s Detiti ners' e on dailv w es fro h rvtces t m the date e the initial cl tes of B h of the order."

23. Tha n u e f e a t n o as f ull time swe u her st to treat th e tem rarv se rce of -, I SN,J w.P.No.19062 of 2O2O oetitioner in the last orade oost of full time sweeper as reqular one for all DUrD ses bv orantinq last qrade a with eriodical inc me m ime from the dat fa ol n r in accordance to law.

24. This Court opines that Detitioner is entitled for consideration of Detitioner's case for orant of the relief as oraved for in the oresent Writ Petation in view of the observations o the ADex Court in various irrdamantc f Qal.rad to an Aa xtracted above \ rnd vaew of the Division Be ch of this Court in the Judoments referred to and extracted above.

25. Takinq in a) cons id era tion:- The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standang counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 & 4. 32 SN,J W.P.No.19062 of 2020 c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and argain enlisted betow: i)(2020) 1 SCC (L&S) (ii) 1990(2) SCC pase 396 (iii) 2O2s rNSc 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 1209 (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14sCc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Ontine SC lzgz (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2oL4) 7 Scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2O24 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 'the Division Bench order of thas Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O and 8S4 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment dated O8.O9.2010 passerd in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), d) e) 'l'he Division Bench order of this Court dated 19.09.2017 passed in W.p.No.2l2l7 ol 2O17 (referred to and extracted above), -) -) SN,J W.P.No.19O62 of 2020 f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23057 of 2019 (referred to and extracted above). g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arraved at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order. The Writ Petition is al lowed, the oetitioner is directed to put-forth the claim of the oetitioner for reoularization of oetitioner's services, and also the er to treat the tem ora of the Detitioner in the las qrade Dost of Sweeoer as reoular one for all ourooses bv orantinq last qrade incr ments revised from tm time from the date of aooointment of the oetitioner -.trtcarrr.a]tl. taI benefi tc drr n 11C liar a I tlra relevant documents in suoDort of oetitioner's case as out-fprth in the oresent writ oetition, within a oeriod of one (01) week from the date of receiot of coov of the order an d the resD ondents shall examine and cons, 34 r sN,J W.P.No.19062 of 2020 with orinci Dles of natural i bvo rovidino an ODDO rtunitv of D e rsona I hea rinq to the o et itio ner, in ter n of orders oassed bv the Su Dreme ourt in Uma ustice Devi' s c se reD edi n 20 Paoe 1 th e u

08. 2O1O reoorted in 2O1 1(1) A LD, PA e234 and o07 7 w s o.o .20 13. an also soerD lvrston Bench Judq ment 742 of 2 10d A (J6(4) scc f o.24

9.2 n2 c 1 1 n o 7 w N 2 217 o 2A2 and also t e Division Bench J udqm nt of this Cou rt dated 2L.O4. O2O oa sed in .A.Nos .1 of 2 O2O in 1 of 2O1 9in .P.No .23057 of 2019 r oorted tn 2 A a 202O(4)ALD Daoe 379 w ich ha lnaD eriod of four (04) attai ed fi na !itv, eeks from the date of r tof a coDvofth is orde con iclerati ntheobservations and the la dulv taki no into laid down ex Cou rtint he va rtous I udqmen ts (refer red above), a dinoarticular, oara No f .53 ,n h Ao an e of the m 35 sNrJ W.P.No.19O62 of 2O20 of Karnataka v. llma Devi and dulv communicate the decision to the petitioner. However, there shalt be no order as to costs. IViscellanequs petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand'closed SD/. T.SREENIVAS REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To, One fair copy to the HON'BLE MRS. JUSTI (For Her Ladyship's Kind Pe SECTION OFFICER PALLI NANDA

1. 11 L.R. Copies. 2. The Under Secretary, [nion of lndia, lMinistry of Law, Justice and Company ; Affairs, New Delhi.

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

4. The Principal Secretary, Panchayathraj Department, State of Telangana, Telangana Secretariat, HYderabad

5. The Commissioner of School Education, Govt. of Telangana, Hyderabad' 6. The chief Executive officer, ZillaPraja Parishad, Adilabad. 7. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer and Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Mandal Prala Parishad, Kadam, Nirmal District'

8. The Chief Executive Officer, Nirmal, Nirmal District 9. One CC to SRI CH. GANESH, Advocate [OPUC] 10.Two CCs to GP for Services-|, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.tOUTl 1 1 . One CC to SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, S.C. for ZPP & IUPP [OPUC]

12.Two CD CoPies MP TKS A#- HIGH COURT DATED:26/0812025 ! THE S ? * rtJlnpTrr2fi L * ORDER WP.No.19062 of 2020 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS