WRITPETITION NO: 16S98 OF 2023 v. learned Government Pleader for Finance rnd Planning

Order

Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, lea rned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, imt.R.Madavi Latha, learned Standing Counsel appearingl on behalf of respondent No.1, Iearned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned Government Pleader for Finance rnd Planning appearing on behalf of Respondent No.4.

2. The oetitioners aD oroached this Cour! seekinq the praver as under: "...to issue a writ, order or direction mor: in the nature of Writ of Mandamus call for the r: the impugned Proc. Roc. No.C1 /343/2023 dt.26.C: the 1't respondent wherein rejecting clalm of t- regularization on the pretext they did not persons to the judgment oF Apex Court in SL.l 2278 of 2014 dt.18.09.2019 despite they were in service in accordance with the Judgment ir 1999 dt. 25.O7.2OO8 against W.A.No.709 of 19 the respondents which was the subject matter i as such is totally incorrect, unfair, unjus misinterpretation, irrational and violation of /\ particularly one :,: rds relating to .2023 issued by l petitioners for ;imilarly placed (C) No.2276 to being contin ued W.P.No.9330 of )9 preferred by r the above SLP -, unwarranted ticle 14 of the 4 SN,J wP 16998 2023 Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently hold that the petitioners being similarly placed persons and being petitioners in W.P.No.7896 of 2006 and batch dt.30.03.2008 as it was a covered by decision to the W. p. No.9330/ 1999 are entitled to regularizations of their services on par with the counter parts in the above SLP with all consequential benefits and pass such other order... "

3. Learn counsel aDDearino n behalf f the Detition ers Dlacino rel iance on the averments made in the affidav t filed in su oort of the resent writ etition rticular to he servi endered itioner w the res n ts herein f re than decad es ntends th at the n titionersa I een titled for the relief as praved for in the Present writ etition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD:- (A) The order i mDuqned dated 25.O5. O23 issued es onden n vt e Pro .c1 343 2023 e titi n herein extracted hereunder:- .PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION KHAMMAM

PTCSCNT: SRI ADARSH SURABHI IAS Proqs.Roc.No.Cl /343/2023 Dt: 26-05-2023 s PEAKING ORDER 5 SN,J wP t6998 2023 Sub:- Khammam Municipal Corporation -Establi:; ment- W.P.No.14902 of 2O2l filed by Sri.P.Ram,: rh S/o Peddulu and( 10) others -individuals are not eligib ( to be considered for their servlce regularization- Speaking Orders- Issued, Ref:- 1)Hon'ble High Court Orders In 74902 of 2(. I Dt:

10.01.2023 filed by Srl.P.Ramesh and (1() ')thers. 2) This oFfice letter addressed to the Directc,t of Municipal Administration Lr. Roc.No. C|/KMC/343/2( 213 Dt: 24.O3.2023. 3 ) Directo r of Municipal Administration Roc. No.356062 /2021/ A3 Dt: 12.05.2023 ORDER: The Hon'ble court has disposed the W.P.l\lr .14902 of 2O2L Dt:10.01.2023 filed by Sri.P.Ramesh S/o Peddulrr rnd (10) others as follows: "In view of the rival submissions made by bc t thrs court is inclined to direct the respondent I the case of the petitioners, strictly in accordart terms of G.O.Ms.No, 212 and in view of tl r passed by this court in W.P.Nos.93330 of 1999 also the observations made by a Division Benct-. W.A. No.709 of 2009 and batch, by duly verif,r the writ petitioners and pass appropritr' expeditiously as possible, preferably withi^ twelve( 12)weeks from the date of receipt 01' order". r the counsels, o. 1 to consider :e with laws, in earlier orders and batch and Of this Court in rg the cases of e orders, as a period of a copy of this The Petitioners herein approached the H() to extend the benefit of the Judgment passed ir 2OO9, whereas the Commissioner, Khamr Corporation aggrieved by the orders of the Hon': approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the I Court whlle dismissing the SLP(C) No.2276 t,r further held that "Since the above order is passe,j the peculiar facts and circumstances of the caso, r'ble High Court W.A.No.709 of ram Municipal e High Court in 7.09.2013 has on'ble Supreme 2278 of 20t4 k:eeping in view l-his order may 6 SN,J wP t6998 2023 not be treated as a precedent in any other case. In view of above all applications including application for impleadment/lntervention shall also stand disposed of.,, The fact that, the Writ Appeals orders passed in W.A.No.709 of 2009 and batch were challenged and carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLp(C) No.2276 to 2Z7B or 2014 was not brought to the notice of the Hon,ble High Court by the petitioner in w.p.No.14g02/2021 for the reasons best known to the petitioner. This Commissioner Khammam tvunicipal Corporation has filed SLP against the Writ Appeals 7O9 of 2009 and batch, the Hon'ble Supreme court speciFicaly mentioned that the orders not be treated as precedent in any other case, in view of such observations by the Hon,ble Supreme Court as such, the claim of the individuals in terms of W.A. No.709 of 2009 may not be necessary to be considered as a precedent. In view of the clarification issued regarding the orders of the Hon'ble High Court passed in W.A. No.7O9 of 2009 consequent observations of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in SLP'S filed against the orders passed in W.A.No.709 of 2009, The Commissioner Khammam Municipal Corporation has come to a conclusion that the individuals are not eligible to be considered for their service regularization. Accordingly speaking orders are issued. Commissioner Khammam Municipal Corporation,, 7 SN,J sr'P 16998 2023 (B) The averments of counter afficl, rvit filed on behalf of the 1't resDondent, in Darticula ', oata 7 .s extracted hereunder:- "7. It is further submitted that, as G.O.2l2 dt.22.04.1994, the petitioners he completed the required 5 years of continuou the cut of date i.e., 25.11.1993 as G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994; as petitioners are not eligible to be consider regularization. " rer the above -ein have not ; service as on prescribed in ;uch all the :d for service DISCUSSION A ND CONCLUSION:-

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of lfre petitioners mainly puts forth the following submissions: (a) The impugned proceedings dated 26,( 5.2023 of the 1't respondent rejected the claim of the f etitioners for regularization of petitioners services on the grounc :hat the Apex Court in SLP (C) No.2276 to 2278 of 2014 held, i its Judgment dated 17.09.2013 preferred against the order dat rd 17.09.2013 passed in W.A.No.709 of 2009 and batch, that the ()rders not be treated as precedent in any other case and thereFore the petitioners are not entitled for the relief as e:( ended to the appellants in W.A.No.709 of 2009 and batch datect 17.09.2013. 8 SN.J wP 16998 2023 (b) The respondents are duty bound to examlne the case of the petitioners for regurarization dury taking into consideration the long length of service rendered by the petitioners herein. (c) The petitioners had been working as contract workers, pump operators and Leakage workers in the Khammam Municipality since 1994 onwards and the long length of service rendered by the petltiollers c_a[not be ignored. (d) Hence the case of the petitioners has to be considered and the order impugned dated 26.05.2023 needs to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted to the 1sr respondent herein. 7 uns la th tth sub on beh f s uarel cov ed ted 5.4.2 5 in W.P.No .37938of2O 21.

8. Learned Standing Counse! Smt.R.Madhavi Latha, appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the fact that the order impugned dated 26.05.2O2g needs to be set aside in view of the fact that the case of the petitioners had not been examined individually duly conducting inquiry and duly examining the retevant documents of the petitioners case and 9 SN;J wP t6998 202i unilaterally request of the petitioners for rerr tularazation of their services is rejected and therefore, the ratter should be remitted to the 1=t respondent herein for reconsideration of the subject issue in accotl lance to law.

9. The Judqment of the ADex Court date .2025 ivil A eal N 18 re rrted in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1735 in "Dharam Sinqh i nd Others v State of U.P. and Another", in particular, thr2 relevant Dara Nos.13. 17 18, 19 and 2O are extracted her,e u nder: "13. As we have observed in both .laggo (Su (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a con\/ perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep r practices where the work is inherently Commission's further contention that the appella time" employees but continue only by virtue of i1 does not advance their case. That interim protec precisely because of the long history of eng,: pendency of the challenge to the State's ref creates rights that did noL exist nor erases entitl arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality cf rra ) and Shripal rnient shield to l ir engagement perennial. The rts are not " fu ll- .erim orders also :ion was gra nted )ement and the rsals. It neither )ments that may those refusa Is.

17. Before concluding, we think it necessary t State (here referring to both the Union governments) ls not a mere market pi constitutional employer. It cannot balance budr; of those who perform the most basic and functions. Where work recurs day after day an j the establishment must reflect that reality I strength and engagement practices. The long t€ regular labour under temporary labels corroc r public administration and offends the promise ol' Financial stringency certainly has a place in publ not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason organise work on lawful lines. r recall that the and the State ticipant but a :ts on the backs recurring public year after year, its sanctioned rm extraction of s confidence in rqual protection. : policy, but it is rnd the duty to \ l0 SN,J wP 16998 2023

18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-hocism" thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint,, is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices ru n n ing. "19. Having regard to the Jong, undisputed service oF the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator reg u la risations, we issue the following directions: i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.O4.2OO2, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV ( Peon/Attend ant/c ua rd or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above. ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regu la rization/retirem ent/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 60lo per annum from the date of default until payment. l1 SN,J wP 16998 2023 I i date of suDerannl.r ii i, Retired aooellan s: Anv aooellant wl r has alreadv retired shall be qranted reqularizatrron w h effect from rtion for oav 24.O4.2OO2 until th fixation, arrears un er clause (ii). and rl calculation of pension, qratuitv and other terminal dur,l . The revised pe nsron and terminal dues shall be oai ! within three months of this Judoment. iv. Deceased aDDellants: In the case of r! rpellant No. 5 and any other aooellant who has died d rr.; inq oendencv, his/her leqal reoresentatives on reco rd sl' i ll be oaid the arrears under clause (ii) uo to the date of e eath. tooether with all terminal/ retiral dues recalculatr: I consistentlv wath clause (i), within three months of this .! rdoment. v, Compliance affidavit: The Principal : rcretary; Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar I radesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selectir,r Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months : ' this Judgment. 20. We have framed these directions omprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court n such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling "rt:onsiderations," and administrative drift which further prolongs , e insecurity for those who have already laboured for years r n daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such : rses cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imtr )sition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable corr rliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a tigher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, creare a budget for lawful <: gagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence bu, .ather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoo<l and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we rave set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, fr I regularization, subsequent financial beneflts, and a swcr r affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to c: tvert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in c qagement and transparency in administration are not matte[ of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of th: Constitution of India.

7. The Aoex Court in the iudqment reportcij I in (2O2O) 1 SCC (L&S) in Prem Sinqh v State of Uttar _ Pradesh and others. at Dara 3 6 held as under: t2 SN.J wP 16998 2023 "36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30_ 40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have r,r1o1(eg[ 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 !'etired rende d bv them rioht from the dav thev ntered h orra I fvtno scrva efo rtU TNose of Den ion. " r nt sh rk- h o n h 8 The ADex Court in the case of Dharwad District PWD Literate Dailv Waqe Emolovees Associ tion Vs. State of Ka rnata ka reoorted in 1990(2) SCC Paqe 396 laid orinciDle that the State should not keeD a o rson in temDorarv or or lonq Der d and have to treat such adhoc se Dersons as reqular one. 9 ara N EA ex in the State o Karnataka and others Vs. U madevi, dated l3 SN.J wP 16998 2023 1O.04-2OO6 reDorted in (2OO6) 4 SCC t is extracted hereu nder: - t a f aC h v ned va ts mi h "53. One asDect needs to be clarified. The:r e mav be cases where irreo ular aooointments (not illeqa a Doot ntments) as exolained in S.V Naravanaooa [ 196,I (1) scR 1281. R.N. Naniu ndaooa 1L972 (1) scc d B.N. Naoarajan [1979 (4) SCC 5O7I and referrl d to in para 15 above, of duly oualified oersons in dulv s:1 n the e'nDtove s have qoEtinyed.to work for ten vears or more_,ut without the interventi n of orders of the courts or (r tribunals. The q rices of such larization d r racf ;ri ri emolovees mav have to be considered o r meri in the ! rt in the cases lioht of the Drin ct D s settled bv this co abovereferred to and in the lioht of this ir L loment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Gq vernments and their instrumentaliti es should take steos o reoularize as a one-time measu the services of rch irreqularlv aoDointed. who have worked for ten vea r! more rn sanctioned Dosts but not u nder cover <I orders of the courts or of tribunals and should furtl !:r ensure that reqular recruitments are undertaken to 'i ll those vacant re uire to be fill g l uo, in cases sanctione Dosts that where temoorarv emolovees or daily w,1 rers are beinq now e m D ved. The oro€ess m st be set i! motion within six months from this date. .! t o

10. The iudoment of the Aoex Court datr: I reDorted in 2024 LawSuit(S 12O9 in la qo Anita and others v Union of India and others, anrl the releva nt paraoraph Nos,12, 1 24, 26, 27 and 28 are extracted L2.2024 c ) ( here nd er: '12. Despite being labelled as "p;r.t-time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuolt ; basis over extensive periods, ranging from rver a decade to nearly two decades. Their enga! ement t4 SN,J wP 1699E 2023 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. D T he claim b the resDondents that these 13. were not reoular oosts lacks merit. as the nature of the work erformed bv the aDDellants was perennaal and 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)l 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 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 correspondlng rights and benefits. It role in rectifvino such hiohliohts the iudiciarv' m isclassific tions and ensurino t at workers receive fair treatment. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure l5 SN,J wP 16998 2023 appointments adhered to constitutional princit es, it is regrettable that its principles are often misirt rrpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of lor c serving employees. This judgment aimed to di, tinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appoi tments. It cateooricallv held that employees in t! reqular appointments, who were enoaoed [ 1 dulv sanctioned posts and had served continu,l rslv for more than ten vea rs should be consid _€ red for reqularization as a one-time measure, I owever, the laudable intent of the judgment is being r; bverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscr i ninately reject the claims of employees, even in case s where tieir appointflents are not illegal, but me r :ly lack adherence to procedural formalities. Gov l rn ment departments often cite the judgment in L r ra Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regLl rrization exists for temporary employees, overlook ng the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cas: ;where regularization is appropriate. This :i rlective 'it and aDolication distorts the iudoment's sc,i puroose, effectivelv weaponizinq it _ aqainst ve ren em lo )nsable services over decades. red i

27. In light of these considerations, in our o is imperative for government departments to example in providing fair and stable emo Engaging workers on a temporary basis for r periods, especially when their roles are integ - organization's functioning, not only con international labour standards but also exF( organization to legal challenges and unclr employee morale. By ensuring fair emp.l practices, government institutions can re C burden of unnecessary litigation, pront security, and uphold the principles of jusr'l fairness that they are meant to emboc approach aligns with international standir sets a positive precedent for the private r;, follow, thereby contributing to the betterment of labour practices in the cour[ 28. In view of the above discussion and indings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned order.: passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set ;r: ide and the original application is allowed to the lrllowing extent: ,inion, it lead by )ym ent. xtended I to the ravenes ses the rm ines )yment Jce the tte job ice and y. This 'ds and tctor to overa ll ry, t6 SN,J wP 16998 2023 i. The termination orders dated

27.10.20L8 are quashed ; ii, The app ellants shall be taken back on dutv forthwith and their services reqularised forthwith- !leweyer. aDoellants shall not be entitled to anv tcl back wa ?tes for tfr a naat I n aFu h6 n 6l h have not worked would be entitled to continuitv of for he said erro d r nd +ha c:rrra for their Dost- would be counted retiral benefits." f

11. The Judqment of the Aoex Court dated 31.01.2025 reDorted in 2O25 INSC t44 an'SHRIPAL A ND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM G HAZIABAD". in oarticular t he relevant oa ra Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder: '15. It is manifest that the Aooella t Workmen ndered their services over several vears, contin uouslv sometime s soannino more t an a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not oroduced in full, the EmDlover's I so-allows an adverse inference under well-esta blished furnish -des n r r r ufls ru In ian labo w disfavors oer Detual dailv-waoe or contractual enoaqem nts in circumsta nces where the work is nen tn n M r il and le nn arf A mt ed sum h ula r absence of a aoree ent. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment 17 SN,J wP t6998 2023 practices as done by a recent judgement of thi, court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragr.3phs. "22. The pervasive misuse of tc.mpo' contracts, as exemplified in this c;:se, ,r systemic issue that adversely afFe(:ts w l .;ob security. In the private sector, th: economy has led to an increase in preca' arrangements, often characterized by la,: security, and fair treatment. Such prac criticized for exploiting workers and ur r standards. Government institutions, upholding the principles of fairness anc even greater responsibility to arroid s employment practices. When public sect,l in misuse of temporary contracts, it nol detrimental trends observed in the gig l sets a concerning precedent that can eroc governmental operations. r y employment Flects a broader llers'rights and rise of the gig rus employment of benefits, job ices have been errmin ing labour € ntrusted with jJStice, bear an rch exploitative entities engage )nly mirrors the .onomy but also 3 pu blic trust jn

25. It is a disconcerting reality that tempr particularly in government institutic I multifaceted forms of exploitation. Whilr purpose of temporary contracts ma\ address short-term or seasona ne: increasingly become a mechanism to 20:, 3826 evade long-term obligations owe( These practices manifest in several ways. rary employees, s, often face ,he foundational lave been to ls, they have SCC OnLine SC to employees. emoorarv" Labe1;: Emplovees a enoaoed for work that is essential,_ recurrt o, and inteqral to the functioninq of an nstituti on are often labelled as "temoorary" or "cor1 :ractual," even when their roles mirror those of req I ar emD lovees. Such misclassification deorives wr,rkers of the securitv, and benefits that d io nitv. reoular em olo es are entat d to. desp te identica I tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Tempcrary frequently dismissed without cause or r ( the present case. This practice undermirl of natural justice and subjects u,orke'r constant insecurity, regardless of the qrr of their service. . Lack of Career Progre; employees often find themselves opportu nities for skill development, incremental pay raises. They remain :,t :mployees are t ice, as seen in :s the principles to a state of rlity or duration ion: Temporary :xcluded from )romotions, or rgnant in their 18 SN,J wP 16998 202) between them and their contributions roles, creating a systemic disparity th eir regular counterparts, despite 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 regular 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 theia tenure spans decades. fnis tact of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement. or unforeseen circu mstances. "

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement 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.

17. 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,7947, and that they were en oaoed workers cannot be releoat d to DerDetual uncertaintv. While concerns of municipal budqet and compliance with oerennial duties. ! , t i I I I t l9 SN,J wP 16998 2023 recruitErent rules merit consideration. su c 1 concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutory )bliqations or neqate equitable entitlements. Indeed bureaucratic lim itations cannot trumD the leoitim E te riqhts of workmen who have served contanuous lt in de facto reqular roles for an extended period.

18. The impuqned order of the Hiqh Cour ! _to the extent they confine the Appellant Workmen to fur!: rre dailv-waoe conttnuitv ol' mr: rninqful back enoaoement witho waoes. is herebv set aside with the followil q directions: I. The discontinuation of the Appe I services, effected without compliance witl Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Dispu i declared illegal. All orders or communicat their services are quashed. In consequer( Workmen shall be treated as continuinll the date of their termination, for all pur seniority and continuity in service. rnt Workmen's Section 6E and s Act, 1947, is ons terminating e, the Appellant in service from roses, including Ii. The Respondent Employer shall reinsta ,e the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or l) rsts a kin to the duties they previously performed) \//ithin cur weeks from the date of this judgment. I he.r1-srf tre oertod of absence (from the date of terminati.! 'n until actual reinstatement) shall be counted fo contin uitv of l service and all conseouential ben ( fits, such as senioritv and eliqibilitv for D rom otiorr1 . if anv. III. Considering the length of seryico, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o of the t ack wages from the date of their discontinuation urr il their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Errrployr:r shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from he date of their reinstatement. IV. The esoondent EmDlo er is dirr ted to initiate a fair and transparent process for rE oularizinq the Appellant Workmen within six monthg from the ate of reinstatement, dul Y considerino th fact that t luties akin to J arization, the eDerformed oerenni al municiDal osts. In assessin C .,'! 20 SN,J wP 16998 2023 n Drocedural w m rn he oa u etroa ivelv t r EA ell e r Tot he extent th t san ioned vacan ctes d s r r m r all n s IM fin i d es contrarv to statutory a nd eoui table norms. I c

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 aie dismlssed.,,

12. a u men o ed in 2017 1 rem Cou Ca 148 I ofP n a and V Ja Par 54 sub- 1 2 e serv das er: "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had conctuded, that temporary employees were not entitted to the minimum of the regular pay- scale, merely for the reason, that the activities cariied on 'by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The futt benih however, made two exceptions, Temporary employees, who fe in either of the two exceptions, were held entitted to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regutar emptoyees. The exceptions recorded by the fult bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder: _ "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other etigible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. 2 But ADDO intees are not aDDointe sanctioned e h d osts and their services are av, w I I oa rnst 2l SN,J wP 1699E 2023 Government or its instrumentalities or a sufficient lons oeriod i.e. for 70 vearc, such d ily waqers, ad ! hoc or contractual aDDOtn tees shal, be entitled to minimum of the regular pav scat without anv ! allewances on the assumption hat work of .! nq worked for oerennial nature is available and ha' I such lono oeriod of time. an eo. table riqht is created in such cateqorv of percons" fheir claim for reoularization, if anv, mav have to_ be considered separately in terms of leqallv permis.s ble scheme. t_ (3) In the event, a claim is made tbr m't imum pay scale after more than three years ,and I ryo months of completion of 10 years of contiiuous t lorkingJ; a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee sl', tll be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and tv,t months."

13. The iudqment of the Aoex Court reoorli:d in 2O1O(9) SCC 247 between: State of Karnataka a nd others v M.L.Kesari and others, in particular, Daras 4 to 9 reads as u nder:

4. The decision in State of Karnataka v. lJmaae on 70.4.2090 (reported in 2006 U) SCC 7). tn that case a Constitution Bench of this Court held that ap,) tintments made without following the due process or the. ,les relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and rization or re- coutts cannot direct their absorption, regul, :, and the High engagement nor make their service pennane.. Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Arti' Ie 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directio't ; for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manne,r, il terms of the st be careful in constitutional scheme; and that the coutts rr,L ensuring that they do not interfere unduly wi, h the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its i , stru menta lities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to tbcilit) e the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. ' ris Court fu rther held that a temporary, contractual, casual ( r a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right tct be r tade permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the rt , )vant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Consti tion. This Court however made one exception to the aLtove t ?sition and the same is extracted below : 22 SN,J wP 16998 2023 4 AD 79 o,n to be R72 rified. ere i R./V. a "53. One asoect nee ten vears or more but without ere mavbe t ille intments) as exolained ,n .s. Narava NADDA 7 7 7 40 507 7 ve, of ulv oua fied ts mi' and B. and referred to tn Dara 75 a been made and the emD lovees have conti.nued to work for ntion of orders of the courts or of t, tn te una ls. o e ouestion of reo ula rizationofth mer'its in t, ttled bv this Cou e lioht of this iudoment. In that con text, the Union of India, instrumentalit. ies shoul,d take steos to reoularize as a one-time mea sure, the rvices of such irreo ula rlv ho have wt aDT'O n for fen vears ormore lv sancti' DoSts but not under cover of of the courts ot of tribunals and shou ld fu rther ensu ruitments are unde rtaken to fill those vacant sanctioned DOSts uire to be filled uo ,r, cases where m wa e now employed. The Drocess m ust he set in above ferred to and in Governments and lioht of the ori, the State in the ca D/es tn stx hs fro s da "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are futfilted : (i) The employee concerned shoutd have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentatity should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be ittegat, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be iltegat. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected SN,J wP t6998 2023 a dutv uDon without undergoing the process of open comp )titive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregula'. (iii) Umadevi ca te concerned Government or instrumentalitv. to t ke steps to trlv aooointed reoularize the services of those ttreou En ten vears emDlovees who had served for more without the benefit or Drotection of anv it|erim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time mear ure. Umadelri, Lust be set in , _ of its decision motion within six months from the date ( rendered o n 7O.4. 2OOG ). ch one-time I '! t, l. G. The term \one-time measure' has te, be t nderstood in its proper perspective. This would normally' rn€i t that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or ea(l instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and pr,z nre a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees vrho ha re been working for more than ten years without the intervenli ,n of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process vt rification as to whether they are working against vacant post:; and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so. regularize their services.

7. At the end of six months from the dar( Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/ c were still pending before Courts. (:onse( departments and instrumentalities did not cotr time regularization process. On the othe Government departments or instru mentalitie ! one-time exercise excluding sever;tl (,/ consideration either on the ground that their c.: in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such c'r employees who were entitled to be consi,Cerec' 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose considered for regularization, merely trecaus exercise was completed without consictering because the six month period mentioned in par has expired. The one-time exercise should cc wage/adhoc/those employees who had put continuous service as on 10.4.2006 with') protection of any interim orders of courts or employer had held the one-time exercise in te. Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of son,t were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of tlmact concerned should consider their cases also, as the one-time exercise. The one time exercise t, of decision in sual employees uently, several mence the one- ' hand, some undertook the tployees from es were pending aumstances, the 'n terms of Para heir right to be -" the one-time their cases, or t 53 of Umadevi osider all daily- n 70 years of !t availing the 'ribunals. If any ns of para 53 of employees who vi, the employer ' continuation of 'ill be concluded 24 SN,J w? 16998 2023 -all the emproyees who aie entitted to be considered only when in terms of para 53 of lJmadevi, are so considered. 8. The object behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure tiat those who have put in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in -lJmadevi rendered, are considered for regularizatioi in view of their long service. Second is to urrii" that the departments/ instrume.ntalities do not pirpetuate the practice of employing persons on daity_wage/ad_ _ for long periods and then periodically hoc/casual regularize them on the q,o_u4Q llat they haye ser:ved for morE than ten yeais) theleby-deieaUigihe constitutional or statutory provisions relating ti recruitment and appointment. The true effect of ihe direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 70.4.2006 (the date of decision in llmadevi) without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessing the requisite qualification, are entitled to be considered for regitarization. The fact that the employer has not undeiiaken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few, witt not disentitte such gmyloVeesa the right to be considered for regularization in terms of the above directions in llmadevi ai a one_time measure.

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

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zita panchayat, Gaiag shoutd now undertake an exercise within six months, a geieral one_ time regularization exercise, to find out whethter tiere are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc emptoyees serving the Zila panchayat and'if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfitt the requirements mentioned in para 5i of lJmadevi. If they futfi them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 7 to 3 because of the pendency of t-hese cases, 25 SN,J wP r6998 2023 then their cases shall have to be considered in the said one time exercise within three months. say that if the respondents do not fulfill the Para 53 of lJmadevi, their services need not ln the employees who have completed ten years possess the educational qualifications prescribet the time of their appointment, they may be regularization in suitable lower posts. This appe accordingly. continuation of 't is needless to equirements of regularised. If service do not I'or the post, at considered for 'l is disposed of L4. In the iudoment of the A Dexcou rt tr Nihal Sinqh and others v. State o Puniab reDorted in ( ; o13) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case ( f absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the ;tate, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose tl sposal their services were made available. It held that I he mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did nct render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State anc disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadrr: is a matter exclusively within the authority of the Starl e, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but r: rose to make appointments of persons creating contractual r refused to relationship, its action is arbitrary. It al:i accept the defence that there were no sarr :tioned oosts and so there was iustification for the Sl:i te to uti I ise d I e m t av n s ou ch c n fn ed. R e e 26 SN,J wP 16998 2023 t e le lik h a el! s n t h t c te th J m U ad h s tt e h h m a m nt n b h re no tm nt as ot n ar' t been made tn accor d the statutorv Drocedu re orescribed und er the Police Ac 1 61. and the State h I ed in h s st as a t e t ti ed of th s n o n w b d ta atn bv the State. ftw as held that the iudo s e e rns U n a n t d c inU e er m P n th e B n ti ue oractice tnconslstent w th their obliqati ction tn an ewa Con it n

15. conline SC o h o r 1797 be een B . Srin i IN 15 and othersv m ssr r 27 SN,J wP t6998 2023 Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh and otheri in particular paras 7 and 8 reads as under: (7) W" lnd it difficult to acceD t the reasoniD'' adooted bv the ,K rcqularization Hiqh Cquft. The riq ht flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.195t. . The aooellant have been in service of the first respondent neL Dlv priat to the issuance of the said G O. but even subseeue,t to the issue of G.O. till todav. The respondent Municipality t )ing a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Ins,t te of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite fo. almost 20 years 's and continued without regularising the service of the appella 1 to extract work from the appellants.

8. In the circumstances, refusing the berr mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appel, the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is no, circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifyin q appeal by directing that the appellants' servic< with effect from the date of their completir,( continuous service as was laid down by this Collector/Cha irperson & Others vs. M.L. Singf SCC 4BO" fit of the above )qts approached iustified. In the the order under s be regularised their five year ::ourt in District 3: Ors. 2009 (8)

16. In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar reorr_ted (2015) 8 scc 26 5, the Suorem e Court held that ' -he objective behind the exception carved out in this case Jvas to permit regularization of such appointment, whictr are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appoantmen :s, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensur( emolovmen t of those Dersons ho had ser red th State secu ritv of Government and their instrumentalities for I nore than ten vears". In that case, employee was working tor 29 years. 28 T a ear ler M K art xtr cte 77 In tat of arkh dv Pra oL4 7 23 imilar vi wwa Co s SN,J wP t6998 2023 b ec. 7 eth the 'rvt continuou slv therefore, the leoal orrnctDle laid down bv 2 n rm th tn heir 70 Ka ,s a e 6 4 cc1 li, Hioh Court has e ti, b t oo6 'c s Th riqhtlv held rt, Cour at a vts, , 53 ka Uma 'sDondent t ec,

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed in W.p.No.276O2 of 2O19 which pertaans to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, yadadri, Natgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 ot 2O23 dated 10.10.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.OA.2O24 in SLp No.32847 ot 2024.

19. The iudq ment of the Aoe Mandir Trus V. Sta of Mah a rashtra ourt in Hari Krishna and ot ers reDorted 29 SN.J wP 16998 2023 in AIR 2O2O Suoreme Court 3969 and in rl rrticular para Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows: "100. The H Article 226 o power to iss mandamus, wer wh igh Courts exercising their ju isdiction under f the Constitution of India, n,: only have the ue a writ of mandamus or rr the nature of but are dutv-bound to r:xercise such blic authoriW t r has failed to exercise or has wron lly exercised discretion conferred upon it bv a statu! or a rule or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised sueh discretion mala fide- or ( n irrelevant consideration. v r n h t

101. In all such cases, the High Court mur; mandamus and give directions to compel an appropriate and lawful manner of conferred upon the Government or a public issue a writ of rerformance in the d iscretion r uthority. "

20. The Dlvl s ion Bench of this Court in its Ju qment .o6.2013 ass in W.A.N 7 2 l',2 O and 854 of 2O12 while upholdino the Judqment datl d o8.o9.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.l 48 of 2OO8 observed as underr- "Further, it is manifest from the material orr services of the similarly placed persons who alt Courts were regularized. The a ppella nt-Corpo r various office orde rslcircu la rs dated 20.12.1! 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 fo,- casual/contract employees, It is also to be seer T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practic€ or workman. As can be seen from the factur cases on hand, engaging the respondents for continuous period of time on casual basis is I labour practice attracting the provisions of So, ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relyin<1 of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respor( to regularization as directed in the impugnr:r record that the ;roached the law r1-ion also issued 39, 11.09.1992, egu larization of that Section 25- :y a ny employer scenario of the such a long and rth ing but u nfa ir tion 25-T of the on the decisions ents are entitled orders, as the 30 SN,J wP 16998 2023 learned single Judge considered all the aspects of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals." Division Bench hi Court in its Jud m n 2L. dated 19.O9.2017 passedin W.P.No.272L7 of 2OL7 reDorted in 2O18(2)ALD Daqe 282 at Dara 16 and para 18 observed s under:- *16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 7994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time a bsorption/reg ula rization 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. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment 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 larization/a bsorptio n exist. Therefore, Act 2 of L994 and G.O. Ms. No.212. dated 22.4.L9 94. do not whittle down t h e wtdth and t he aniula Bashini's case (supra), does not .rf tlre dire rl. ions iccr razl r'ha SuDreme Court in Para 53 of its iudoment in Uma Devi's r take shelter under Act 2 of Ms. No.212, d ated 22.4.L994, to denv r ularization to satisfi arl +lra f h criteria laid down in Para No,53 of the iudoment in Uma Devi's ca e tra e.t.rrv se su ra zA mt l-l-oA (suora). v t n

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2017, In OA No.1442 of 2074, on the file oF the Tribunal is set aside ection to the and the wri ion is allowed with the di )l SN,J wP 16998 2023 respondents to consider requlari5ation o'the services of the Detitioners aqaanst the exastanq va<:i ncies of Work Insoectors and aoo int them subiect to :heir satisfvinq the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of t re iudqment in Uma Devi's case (supra), This process m Lr.! t be completed within two months from the date of recr:i Dt of a coov of th is order. "

22. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment dated 21.O4.2O2O oassed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 ot 2019 and W.P.No.23057 of 2019 reDorted in 2O:2 l(4)ALD paqe 379 a r 4 4 ed a s under:- "45. There is no dispute that petitioners hav( daily wage since 1990 and have put in almc service by now. They have been given minimur the year 2000. They have been continuousl,r any Court orders In their favour from 1990 till : reen working on st (30) years of rtime-scale from working without lte. lha decision in Um D v

48. tt is not known whv the 1st resD ndent has not ( a se (suora), as fnllarerarl explained in M.L. Kesari's case (suora) a 1 I undertaken a one-time exercise of oreoarino the lisl: of dailv waoe emolovees who had worked for more tha C ten (1O) vears without the intervention of the Courts an(l_ Tribunals as on 10.4.2005 and su bie ct them to a Drocess' )rification as to whether thev are workino aoainst vac rnt Dosts and possess requisite qualifications for the tl rsts. and if so. reoularize t err servlces.

50. Accordingly, the writ petition ls allower; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st rer;,ondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of ;ervices on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 76 and 21 of the Constitutio of India; the resoondents are dir cted to reqularize orr one-time basis petitioners' services from the date each c,l the petitioners comDlete 1O vears of service on dailv aoes f m the initial dates of their appointment, But, th :v shal! not be entitled to any monetary relief. The said ': <erctse shall be 1e of receiDt of on wt eks rom coov of the order." o v 32 SN,J wP r699E 2023

23. The Aoex Court in its .I doment in State of Uttar Prade h and Othe Vs. Aravind Kumar Srivastava and hers, dated 1 1O.2O14 in Civil Apoeal N0.9849 of 2O14 obs rved as u nder: "(1) Normal rule is that when a Dart icu I r set of em D ovees is oiven relief bv the Court. all other n ated er extend inq that bene t. Not doino so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of to be the constitution of India. This orinciole need rnnliael rvt ,'a ti. ts rtrAa n rrr.++6rc m I a arrrrihali-- r,t c fzrrrri .l b fra ]rrt tm time oo tulates that all similarlv situated Dersons e the n ;:nrl imitarl that merelv beca use other similarl lier th roach h situated ul ,ll. would b e n to be treated differentlv." This Court ooines Deti ioners herein nnot be discrimin ted and Detitioners are entitled for cons ideration of their case for reoularization of services which had been extended similarlv situated oersons like the oetitioners herein.

24. rto tn st at in resent h resDondents f iled to discharqe their dutv ln examrnrno the reouest of the Detitioners for re ularization of JJ SN,J wP 16998 2023 petitioners services, who are workinq as Pr1 rro Ooerators, contract workers and Ieakaqe workers in the Khammam Municioa and further to con sider their r( ouest the temoorarv service of the oetitioners as r eoular one for all our DOses bv orantino last tncrement revised from time rade oav y 'ith oeriodical h date of time fror aooointmen t of the Detitioners. in accordan c g to law.

25. This Cou ooines that oetitioners ale entitled for ( consideration of Detitione rs case for qrant f the relief as oraved for in the Dresent Writ Petition iI view of the observations of the Aoex Court in vari<l ts iud qments (referred to and extracted above) and ttr, r view of the Division Bench of thi Court in the udqme ts referred to I nd extr bove.

26. Takino into consideration: - (a) The aforesaid facts and circunr: ;tances of the case, (b) The submissions made by the lt:, rrned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners arr, I the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, 34 SN,J wP 16998 2023 (c) The order impugned dated 26.05.2023 issued the 1't Respondent vide Proceedings Roc.No.C1l34312023 (referred to and extracted above), (d) The averments made in the counter affidavit fited on behalf of the 1't respondent, at para 7 (referred to and extracted above) (d) The observatjons of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: (i) 202s scc oNLTNE sc 1735 (ii) (2020) 1 scc (L&s) (iii) r990(2) SCC Page 396 (iv) 2025 INSC r44 (v) 2024 Lawsuit(SC) 1209 (vi) (2017) 1 SCC 148 (vii) 2010(9) SCC247 (viii) (2013) 14SCC 6s (ix) 2015 SCC Online SC 7797 (x) (201s) B SCC 26s (xi) (20t4) 7 ScC223 (xii) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xiii) AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3969 (xiv) (2006) 4 SCC 1 (xv) 2011 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xvi) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvii) 2020(4)ALD page 379 (xviii) 2020(4)ALD page 379 (e) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at para Nos.5 to 25 of the present order, The Writ Petition is allowed. The order im uoned t vide the 1"t ResDonde dated 26.Os.2023 , ued bv 35 SN.J wP 16998 2021 Proceedin s Roc.No.Cl l343l2023 is set matter is remitted to the 1't resoondent t ) consider the ners for reqularizatio of petitioners reouest of the Detitio rside and the l the fact that services dulv takino into consideratio Detitioners had rend ered more than 2 t2 decades of n service for the resoo dents herein, in accrl'dance to law in conformitv with Dnnct es of netu rl iustice bv !:arinq to the providinq an oooortunitv of Detitioners as per the observations of the I rex Court in its iudqments referred to and extracted ab rve and pass aoorooriate orders within a oeriod of fo1 r (O4) weeks DErsonal I r J from the date of r communicate the decision to the oetitior ers. However iot of coDv of this < rder and duly there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, iF any pendin(, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTI (For Her LadYshiPs Kind ;l To, Sc,/ P.C SULEKHA D A!i ;ISTANT RAR SECTION OFFICER URE ] {LLI NANDA

1. The Commissioner, Khammam Municipal Corporation' (hammam' Khammam District.

2. The commission and Director of Municipal Administratio ' state of Telanagana' A.C.Guards, HYderabad,

3.ThePrincipalsecretary,MAandUDDepartment,secrel:riat'Hyderabad'State of Telanagana. I i i

4. The Principal Secretary, Finance and planning Department. Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telanagana.

5. '1 1 LR Copies 6. The Urrder Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

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

8. One CC to SRI SRINIVASA RAO MAD|RAJU, Advocate tOpUCl 9. One CC to SMT R.MADHAVI LATHA, SC FOR MCPL [OpUCl "l0.Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN & URBAN DEV., High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI 1'l .Two CCs to GP FOR FINANCE & PLANN|NG, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

12. Two CD Copies 8SR \ HIGH COURT DATED: 2910812025 .{ LoFTEL4 4 ,$ q o G s\ l--: s CC TODAY t I I,i ORDER &otH+ t'!' WP.No.16998 of 2023 I ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 9/L