High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of rhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue writ or brder or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in regula rizing the -/ petitioners services as General purpose Employees in the existing vacancies in the 3rd respondent as G.o.Ms.No.16 Finance (HRM-ll) Department dated 26.02.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent as bad, arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and consequen y direct the respondents to regularize the \_ petitioners services as General purpose Employees in the existing vacancies in the 3rd respondent as G.o.Ms.No.16 Finance (HRM-ll) Department dated 26.02.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 1 5'l 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 respondents to regularize the petitioners services as General purpose Employees in the existing vacancies in the 3rd respondent as G.o.Ms.No.16 Finance (HRM-ll) Department dated 26.02.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRt C.DAMODAR REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI C.RUTHWIK REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR SERVICES lll Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: SRI T.SUDHAKAR REDDY, SC FOR HMWSSB The Court made the following: ORDER I ( i t o HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A WRIT PETITION No. 16857 OF 2019 ORDER: Heard Sri C. Damodar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. C. Ruthwik Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleadcr for Services - III on behalf of Respondents 1 and 2 and Sri T. Sudhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 3 and 4.

2. The case oi Petitioners is that thev havc been working as NMRS/ Garden Workers in the plantation Cell division of thc 3,d respondent since more than 20 years and they havc been discharging their duties regularly and sincerely to the satisfaction of Respondents 3 and 4.It is their case that the Deputy Consen,ator of Forests, Plantation Cell Division of the 3"i respondent issued Certificate of ldentity and service dated 06-03-2014 certilying rhat petitioners were initially engaged in HMWSSB as NMRS and as on 06-03-2014, they are u,orking as Outsourcing Garden Workers. It is also the case of petitioners that they have been working as NMRS/Outsourcing Garden Workers till date, since the government has introduced the Outsourcing SysLem in all the departments and Corporations. Petitioners state that after formation ol State o[ l I 2 \ Telangana, the 2"d respondent issued G.O.Ms.No:16, Finance (HRM-I) Department dated 26-02-20 16 adapting the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalization of S taff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (Act 2 of 1994), wherein Section 1O-A is inserted for regularization of services o[ persons appointed on contract basis on a condition of availability of posts, persons appointed on full-time contract basis on a monthly remuneration and also working as on O2-06- 2014. It is also the case of petitioners that the 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms. No. 33, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (c) Department, dated 29 Ol-2O14 permitting the 3'd respondent to take-up Special Recruitment Drive for filling 45O vacancics in the cadre of General Purpose Employees (Water Suppty) and 2Oa of General Purpose Employees (Sewerage) with H R and NMR workers who have been working with Board Prescribing Selection process and relaxing the age and qualifications as one time measure to the HR & NMR Workers who have been working with HMWSSB for last 13 to 25 years. Petitioners also state that the 2'd respondent also issued G.O.Ms.No. 1 1 1, Finance (HRM-II) Department t J ?) dated O1-O8-2O18 creating 692 posts including 40O posts of General Purpose Employee (Water Supply and Sewerage). It is their specil-rc czrse that the General Purpose Empkryees include Mazdoor, Cartman Man, Mali, Malan, Head Mali, Asst. Head Mali, Gardener, etcetera, as such, they are eligible and entitled for regularization of their services as General Purpose Employee since they hzrve been working as NMRs / outsourcing Garden Workcrs on monthll' remuneration on par r"'ith regular cm ployees.

3. Respondents 3 and 4 filed Counter Affidavit stating that petition(:rs have been working as Garden Workers in Plar-rtation Cell Division (CPD) of the 3'd respondent- Board since 1990, 1996 and 2OOO through petty contractor system in diffcrcnt divisrons of HMWSSB and their services are continued in thc respective Divisions / Sections of Himayath Sagar and Osman Sagar of Plantation Cell Division, but however, it is stated that sen,ices of petitioners are seasonal in nature and not continuous. It is the case o[ these respondents that G.O.Ms.No. 33 datecl 29-O1 2Ol4 issued by Government to fill up 450 + 280 vacancies of Gcncral Purpose Employee in the ficld of Water Supply and Ses,arage as Special Recruitment for HR and NMR Workers, u,ho arc already working in the Board and that 4 petitioners are not eligible for appointment as General Purpose Employee. Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 111 dated O1-08-2018 creating 400 posts of GPEs apart from other posts and it is meant for direct recruitment of GPEs., however, HMWSSB has written to Government seeking concurrence of Finance Department before initiating the process of recruitment, which is still awaited from Government and respondents will have no objection for petitioners who fulhl recruitment criteria. It is also the case of respondents, Garden Workers were engaged through M/s Kakani Consultancy services from 2010 to 2018 on Outsourcing basis and services of petitioners now being engaged through Outsourcing Agency - M/s Sumathi Corporate Services Private Limited from 2O 18 onwards to provide man power to Plantation Cell Division.

4. In response to Counter Affidavit, Petitioners hled Reply denying the averments and allegations by Respondents stating that the allega[ion that petitioners'work was seasonal in nature is false and further stated tha[ when respondents 3 and 4 orally terminated some o[ the Garden Workers, approached the Labour Court and obtained Award reinstatement with 25%o back wages and the said matter attained finality when Writ Appeal Nos. 703, 238 and 7O7 of ) 2O 1 1 liled by respondents were dismissed on 29-l l -2O I 1. petilioncrs have also hled additional documents and orders passed b-v the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in support of tht:ir claim.

5. The Learned Senior Counsel appeared for pelrtioncrs argued that admittedly, petitioners have been u,orking in tht' 3.d respondent Board from 1990, 1996 and 2000 onrvards ancl till date, they are working as NMRS/ Outsourcing and Ccrtificate of Identiqy and Service dated 06-O3-2O14, Experience Ct rtillcate issued to petitioners clearly shows that thcy rnitiallv u'orked as NMRs for several years. Even according to Respondents 3 and 4, petitioners were engaged on outsourcing svstem lrom 2OlO onwards. Learned Senior Counsel ftrrther argued that when respondents failed to consider the <:ascs of petitioners for payment of minimum time scale, thev filed O.A.No. 1016O of 2012, g,herein, by interim ordcr drrted 20 12-2012, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal directed respondents to pay Minimum Time Scale to petitioncrs, pLlrsuant to the same, the 3.d respondent issued order dated 17 -06-2013 for payment of S.S. Rates zrpplicable to thcm. [-earned Senior Counsel also argued that when respondcnts clcliberatell' failed to consider the cases of 6 petitioners and others for the posts of General Purpose Employee (Water Supply & Sewerage) in terms of G.O.Ms. No.33, dated 29-Ol-2O14, they hled O.A. No. 1801 of 2014. By order dated 07 -O3-2O14, the Tribunal disposed of the same directing respondents to receive Applications of applicants - petitioners herein and consider their cases for appointment as General Purpose Employee (Water Supply & Sewerage) as per the said GO and Rules and pass appropriate orders. Learned Senior Counsei argued that pursuant to APAT orders, respondents received Applications of petitioners and condugted interview and Field Test on 26-05-2014, but so far, not passed any orders thereon and respondents deliberately sleeping over the matter. Therefore, petitioners filed the present Writ Petition seeking appropriate orders for regularization of their services.

6. [e arned Government Pleader for the 2nd respondent only stated that they have not received any recommendations from Respondents 3 and 4 in respect of regularization of services of petitioners.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on the order dated O6-L2-2O22 in Writ Petitions No. 27 602 of 2Ol9 (Manipati Lingam v. The State of Telangana) and the order dated. 09-12-2022 in Writ Petition No. 5819 of 2O18 (Mudusu Ramesh v. The State of Telangana) allorving the Writ Petitions by rell,ing on various Judgments of the Hontrle Apex Court in sinrilar set of facts and directed respondents to consider the cases of petitioners therein for regularization of their seruices considenng the law laid down by the Apex Court and pass appropriatc orders within a period of two months. Learned Senior (lounsel also placed reliance on the orcler dated l5-O3 2022 in Writ Pctition No. 9299 of 2O2O (A. Murali v. The Secretary to ( iovernment, Municipal Administration & Watcr Supply Deparrmcnr, Government of Tamilnadu) passed by the Higtr Court of .Iudicature at Madras holding that Governmen.ts have be nevolc'n t.l-r. conte up with several schemes for regularization ol employees in various departments and issued orders lor reglr lzr riza tion o[ several hundreds of NMI?S arrd ac] hoc employees and that petitioner has been employed for more than seven ycars on contract basis continuously and then repucli:rte his r:laim lor regularization is a reflection of barren mindsct on thc part ol- the jaded administration and the denial of said claim of' pctilioner u,ould result in hostile discrimination, thus, r.r,ould amounl ro offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution o[ lndra. I ) 'f## 1 t j.:., _!'-- ,.i,.n-f'. ' In view of the above-stated facts and circumstances

8. and the legal proposition and on perusal of Counter Aff-rdavit hled by Respondents 3 and 4, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioners have been continuously working as NMRS/Outsourcing Garden Workers for more than 25 years in the 3'd respondent Board and spent most of their life and energies in the said employment, whose toil has been extracted by respondents and it may not be fair on the part of respondents to oppose the grant of relief to petitioners Such mindset invariably result in putting up stereo-type opposition to grant the relief of regularization to the poor employees, who'eak out their measly livelihood, forced to live on the edge for years together in not knowing their future. g. As held in the above-referred judgements, approach o[ respondents to put up the employment of scores of employees for years together on the tender hooks is opposed to thc constitutional values namely fair play,. equity, good conscience and justice. Government, being a model employer, cannot be allowed to justify its exploitation of despairing employees on the ground of their employment is irregular or temporary or outsourcing or ad- hoc, etcetera. Such negative plea is not \ particularly available after employing them continuously for \ \ .-::: ) r.l I longer duration of 25 years. The Certificate of Identity and Service and tl-rc Experience Certificates issued to Petitioners and even the Countcr Affidavit filed by Respondents 3 and 4 clearly indicate lhat respondents have engaged petitioners initially as NMRs for mrrrc than ten years. Thereafter, when Government evolved the outsourcing system, Respondents 3 and 4 have been engaging pe titioners through a 3.d party-Agency from 2010 onwards continuouslv by paying them paltry wages, only with an intention to dcny the relief ol regularization of services. Respondents have been engaging petitioners . as NMRs/ Outsor.rrcing continuously since more than 25 years and extracting thc s,ork lrom the m regularly without undertaking anv exercise to iclentiiv regul:rr vacancy in the above posts and without crcatior) ol sanctioncd posts for petitioners, which is nothing but L'x1)lortation o[ helplessness of petitioners and it certainly violrtes their right to life guaranteed by Article 21. Respondents cannot take services o[ petitioners for decades together u.ithotrt regularizir-rg them in the 3.d respondent-Board. Even in the Counter Affidavit, it is stated that Government created 40O posts ol (ieneral Purpose Employee in the 3.a respondent Board uirie C-i.O.Ms.No. 1 i 1 clated O1-O8 2O18 for direct recrr"ritment :rnrl lhat the 3"1 respondent has also written \ t0 a letter to Government seeking concurrence of Finance Department and respondents will have no objection for petitioners be absorbed, who fulfil the recruitment criteria' Admittedly 4O0 posts are sanctioned and available in the 3'd respondent-Board for recruitment' Besides' the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions and the directions given by this Court and the High Court at Madras' as stated supra would squarely appty to the factual matrix of this case' This Court is of the firm opinion that the statement IO. made by the 3'd respondent in the Counter Afhdavit that petitioners did not satisfy the requirement as per the G'O and further petitioners are not working against any sanctioned posts as per the G.Os. issued, hence, they are not entitled to be consideredforregularizationcannotbesustained'asperthe observationsofthevariousApexCourtjudgementsreferredto and also in view of the fact that petitioners are rendering their services continuously from the last 25 years till date' Respondents cannot deny the relief of regularization [o petitioners as per the decision in State oJ Ka;aztaka Vs' IJmadeuil, which permits one time exercise of regularization to be done for personnel employed on temporary basis / daily , (2006) 4 SCC 1 wages, etcetcra, who have rendered continuous service for more than 10 yezrrs. Respondcnt cannot take the services of petitioners for vears togcthcr u'ithout regularizing their seruices and indulge rn such a practice inconsistent with their obligation to function in accordance n,ith the Constitution, as observed by the Apex Court in Nihal Singh a. State oJ PunjaP whrch clearly held that s:rnctioned posts do not fall from heaven and the State has to croate them bv a conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment of the need-

11. Furthcr, in G. Srtnirrasa Chary a. State o;f Telangana (W.P. No. 47675 of 2018), this Court stated that respondents' action in engaging pe titioners on 'outsourcing basis' as sanitary Supervisors, Sanitation workers, Entomologu Field Workers, Iintomolog. Superior Field Workers, Supervisors, Superior Field Assistants through intermediaries / agencies /contractors is contrary to lau.,, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and also the law declared by the Supre me Court in Umq Devi's case (supra) mandating perioclic regular recruitment to sanctioned posts. The Court further opined that 'outsourcing' svstem adopted by GHMC is only a sham and a ruse lo avoid cxtcnding to petitioners their genuine service ' ntR 2o ti st Ilr t2 .\ entitlements and that the presence of such intermediary / contractor has to be ignored and petitioners are held to have been directly engaged by GHMC and they are also held entitled to be considered for regularization of services.

72. Petitioners have been working for the 3'd respondent not only prior to issuance of the said G.Os. but even subsequent thereto till today. Respondents did not deny the fact that petitioners are employed for more than 25 years and by that very fact, the claim of Petitioners is to be considered favourably, without any reservation from respondents. Besides the ratio laid down in atl the decisions, as stated "u,p., ^.,d th" directions givcn squarely apply to the factual matrix of this case and denial o[ claim of petitioners would amount to offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

13. Taking into consideration the above-referred facts and circumstances and in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in various judgments which are referred to in the above mentioned orders by this Court and the High Court at Madras, the Writ Petition is allowed and respondents are directed to consider the cases of Petitioners for regularization of services from the date of their initial appointment in the existing 4OO vacancies o[ General Purpose Employee posts or by r:t:ji:- : -_Fn!3;1', sanctioning thc regular posts in the 3'd respondent-Board as one-time exercisc and pass appropriate orders for regulirization of their serviccs within a period of two months from the date of reccipt of a co1;y o[ this order and communicate th€ decision petitioners. No costs.

14. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand ckrsed. I That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above' Witness THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL' on this FRIDAY, THE TWENW TOUiii.ONi OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW SD/-T. TIRUMALA DEVI NT REGISTRAR AS I //TRUE COPY// S CTION OFFICER The Princioal Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Oeoartment Secretariat. Hyderabad, State ot lelangana' ff5H;;i;;i5L"r"tjrv' ri6jnce (HRM-ll) Department secretariat' Hvderabad, Government of Telangana' itI'lr,rl"""1iii* oirector xnaiiJtJuSo, rlyderabad rriletropolitan water Supplv anO Seweiag6 Board, HYderabad' The Deoutv Commissioner oiFiiettt, Plantation Cell.Division F-lYd-erabad ffi;W;i6r"Wott ,nJ sl*"*ge aoi,.o Asif Nagar filter Bed' Asif Nagar Mehdipatnam, HYderabad, i5"lj"iC ili s nr d. nulHw t x RE D DY, Ad vo-cate Lo qy cr Two CCs to Gp FoR srnvicL'-s"-n-r, i-iiin ci,,jrt i"r the'State of Telangana, at Hvderabad. [OUTI ijLl,"cCi.i sh-ii.duonnrnn REDDY, sc FoR HMWSSB [oPUC] Two CD CoPies FIVE To

4. 5 6

7. B. PSK. BS e HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 ORDER WP.No.16857 of 2019 a. q J o U 1 ;\' Y' ;' 2 5 [;] 'i25 t ., Fa.ri-v\: (i P;l) ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ^ilCr0'4 ,{