D. Ganapathi v. 1. The District Collector

Order

Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, !earned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent No,1, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education, appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 and Sri G.Narender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TG ZPP MPP GPPS, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

2. The petitioner approached this Court with the following prayer: " ..... to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents herein not to paying the full time worker from legitimate living wages to the petitioner 25.10.f991 to till date fixed by 1st Respondent under the Provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 watch was enacted as per Article 43, of our constitution to pay living wages as highly illegal, u nconstitutional, unjust, unfalr and totally illegal and prays to direct the respondents herein to pay legitimate 4 SN.J W.l'.\ ) 10051 ()1'2020

living wages oF full time worker fixed by 1st Respor ( ent from time to tlme to time as per Section 13 and L;of lvlinlmum Wages Act,1948 with effect from 25'10 1)99 to till date with arrears of pay with 100 percer)r age compensation in denylng daily wages 30 long year; as per principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court l'1 the case of Union of India Vs. Avtarchand reported in 2 319 ALD(3) SC 32 by reckoning total contingent ser rice rendered by petitioner in 2nd and 3rd Responder t to regularize services of petitioner by applying prin iple laid by Apex Court in B.Srinivasulu Vs Nellore Muri :ipal Corporation and further prays to apply principle rr the case of Netram Sahu Vs state of Chattisgarh :ivil Appeal No.1254 of 2018, dated.23lo3/2018 and lr the case oF Premsingh Vs the State of Uttar Pradesh irr 3ivil Appeal No.6804, dated O2.O9.2019, for computat ( n of qualifylng service of petitioner to grant gratuity payment granting Act 1972 and retirement ber efits including pension and also award exemplary costs and pass." 'r1

3. Lea rned ADD arinq on beh fof ma ern o la ci suoDort of th Drese tw 1 it De ition ffidavit filed i the a pertainino in Darticular, to the services re! dered bv r lT[ 're than a ith th resoo dents petitioner erei n 5 SN,J W.P.No.20051 of2020 decade contends that th e etitioner is entitle d for the relief as oraved for in the oresent rit petition. PERU ED THE REC ORD:- DISCUSSION A D CONCLUSION 4. Learned cou nsel Artne rrn on behalf o o a t oner submi t the su lssue n the r s n ase rs s U b he order of thi dated O8.O

9.2010 Dassed tn W.P.No.2 377 of 2OO7 reDorted in 2011(1) ALD. Paoe 234 as confirmed in dated 19.O9 .2O17 oasse W.A.No.78 2 of 2O1O. dated 1O.O 6.2O13 a nd also order, in W.P.No.272 t7 ot 2Ol7 reoorted in 2018 (2) ALD Pao e 282 and lso the order, dated 21.04.2 o20 Dassed in W.P.No.23O57 of 2019 d reoorted in 2O2o(4) ALD Paoe 379.

5. Learned standi no couns I aooearino on behalf of the resoondent No. 4 submi s that the qrievance of the petitaoner as put-forth in the present Writ Petition had n n te an ressed ondents herein as on h 6 SN.J W.P.\ r 10051 of 2020 rna ction on the part of resDo ndents tt, rrern ln itioner a dhence, o the q rieva ce of the D con sideri n the relief as oraved for bv the Detitio ner in th,r Dresent and no Ma nd mus can wit oetiti n can be issued aqainst the resI)on ents hereun er ! s souqht for and the Detitioner mavb dire forth the not be orant dto out D Petition bv wav ofad tioner sq rrevance as Dut-forth in the Dre ient Writ orese tatirc n to the of _ the said uDon recer D herei n resDond en r tion, the resoondents would cort ;ider the same in accordanc e to law within a reasonab ! : oeriod. a Lear 6 oetitioner does not disoute the said submisg ron made bvthe learn ed sta dino counsel a oDea rt no ot'l behalf of the respondent No.4 7 The ADex Court in the iudq ent reD rtecl in ( 2020) 1scc (L&s) i n Prem Sinoh v State of U ar Pr, rdesh and others,at oara 36 heldasu nder: ,7 SN,J W.P.No.2005l of2020 "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-tlme measure, the 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 recelve the pension as if they ou lar establishment and have retired from the t the services rendered bv hem ioht from the dav thev entered the work-charoed establishment ifwinrr <crwica fnr nrrrnoea <ha of pension." hp counted a r

8. The Aoex Court in the case of Dharwad District PWD Laterate Dailv Waqe Emolovees Association Vs, State of Karnataka reoorted in 1990(2) SCC Paqe 396 laid DrinciDle that the State should not keeo a Derson in n riod an have treat such Dersons as reqular one. 8 SN,J W.P.No 10051 of2020

9. Para No.53 of the of t e iudqment of he Apex Court in the State of Karnata ka and others Vs. madevi dated 10.04.2006 reported in (2006) 4 '5 CC 1 is extra cted hereu der: - e I . The "53. Oneas ect needstob cla rified. 't' tere mav be case s where i rreoular aooointments (l ot illeoal ADDOI ntments) as exolain ed in S.V Na ri lvanaDDa I196 (1) SCR 128]. R.N Naniund DDA L97 (1) .N. Naqar ian t1979 (4) icc 07'l scc 4091 and and referred to in Dara 1 above, of dul,r qualified oers ns in du v sanctio ned vacant oo1ts miqht ade and the e molov es have continued to work for ten vears or rnore but with ut the in rvention of orders of the courts or lariza ,on of the services of such molov s mav har etobe ,rtncl oles in th in th e casesa ove l1 :ferred to sett dhvt and i n the liqh of this iudoment. fn th:r : context, v rn ents and their instrumentalities should take - steDs to reo u larize as a one-time measure, the!; :rvices of such i rreo u la rlv aooointe d, who h ve lr orked for ten vears or m re in dulv sanctione d Dos i:s but not oro trib na ls under cover of orders of the cou thal: reoula r ensu re lt th r;e vacant ouire to be fill ,ed up, in sanctioned posts t s or dari lv waqers cases where temDorarv emolov ino now emoloved, The orocess nt rst be set in mo further his C hat re should Unio fIn 1 iudomentofth

10. The e ADex Cou 't dated

20.L2.2024. re rted in 2 O24 LawSu it(sc ) 1209in J 9 SN,J W P.No.20051 of2020 d oth sv,u n t and the relevan DA raora t)h Nos.12, 13. 24. 26. 27 and In R 28 are extracted hereunder: "12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, 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. 13. The claim bv the resDondents that these were not reqular Dosts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed bv oerennial and nln of th 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. a DDellan ts ndamental n IO SN,J W.P.N : 1005I of 2020 The landmark judgment of the Unite C 24. State in the case of Vizcaino v Micros:'t Corporation lg7 F.3d 1187 (gth Cir. 199ti I serves as a pertinent example from the priva e sector, illustrating the consequences rf misclassifying employees to circumv(l lt providing benefits. In this case, Microsc ft classified certain workers as independ(l lt contractors, thereby denying them emplol't e benefits. The U.S' Court of Appeals fe; 1'l e Ninth Circuit determined that these worke's were, in fact, common-law employees and w: -e entitled to the same benefits as regltl lr employees. The Court noted that la - le Corporations have increasingly adopted : te practice of hiring temporary employees :r independent contractors as a means of avoidi tg payment of employee benefits, therr: ly increasing their profits. This judgme rt underscoies the principle that the nature of t le work performed, rather than the label assigtt :d to the worker, should determine employm€ nt status and the corresponding rights a td benefits. It hiqhliqhts the iudiciarv's rolcl in at rd rectifvi no work rs ens urino rec ive fair treatment. isclass fication

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (suf> a) sought to curtail the practice of backc( or entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable tha: its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of lc ng serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregL I lr" a ppointm ents. teqoricallv held that emolo ee5 ln It ADDOintme ts, who w'( re irreoular Dosts nd lad enq oed in dulv sa ctioned € 1l SN.J W.P.No.2005l of 2020 annliaf c+.ar+c served continuouslv for more than ten vears should be considered for reoularizataon as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscrim inately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This <a c.t lv iudoment's soirit and ouroose. effectivelv weaoonizinq it aqa nst emolovees who have rendered indisoensabl e servlces over decades. 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 international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government instatutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote iob security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall 11 sN,j W.P.Nc 20051 of2020 betterment of Iabour practices in tl e cou ntry.

28. In view of the above discussion e r d findings, the appeals are allowed. l'l e impugned orders passed by the High Court zrr d the iribunal are set aside and the origir 3l application ls allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders da r :d

27.1O.2018 are quashed; ll. The aooellants s all rvices not be en itled tak n back on duW forthwith art rd requ larisr ld fort with. H owever, the aDDellan ts a!.t !y Decuniarvbenefits/ back waqes lrr the oeriod thev have not worlt :d but would be entitled _lo conti nuitv of services for the s Eid same would _re Derto It- cou ted retiral ben ts. " thei r DC

11. The .Iudqme nt of th Aoex Court dated :r ..o1,2o25 reoorted in 2O25 rNsc 144 in "SH RIPAL AND, ANOTHER HAZIAB D". in oartiI ular, the IGAM, AGAR relevant para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted her(1 rnder: llan Workmen '15. con inuousl v render ed thei servlces o!J lr several som imes sDannln more han _ a decade. oduced in r roll if ce l3 SN,J W.P.No.2005l of 2020 I n w ements in full, the Emplover's failure to furnish such records-desDite direct ons to do so-allows an adverse inferenc e Lt nder well-established labour urts ru disfavors oeroetual dailv-waoe or contractual tances where the work i lt w k r ermanen tn who fulfil on Cto tno m Unicioal reouirements vear after vear cann ot be ismissed summarilv as Da rticu a rlv in the absence of a disoensab le qenuine contractor aqreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" ernployment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs: I n "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 underrnining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detri mental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that ca n erode public trust in 14 SN,J W.P.N,r. 10051 of 2020 governmental operations. ii. it it a disconcerting reality that I employees, Particularly in institutions, often face multifaceted exploitation. While the foundational l) temporary contracts may have been t short-term or seasonal needs, tf increasingly become a mechanism to OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term oblige t to employees. These practices manifesl: ways: 3m porary vernment lorms of trpose of ) address 3y have IO24 SCC ons owed in several Label s: Ii nolovees oM rsuse f "Tem DOrary en aoed for work that ts essential. l ecurrino, inteqral to thefu nctionin rof ln itution are often labe lled as "tt: n Dora rv" th:ir r or "contractual," even whe reou I r emD lovr: :s. Suc h mirror rker ; of the I i reqular to, de oite those of ifica nde ves are entitled emD lovees oerformino identical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: TemPorary are frequently dismissed without caus: as seen in the Present case. Thi undermines the principles of natural j subjects workers to a state of constan: regardless of the quality or duratitl service. . Lack of Career Progression: employees often find themselves ext:l opportunities for skill development, p or incremental pay raises. They reme i in their roles, creating a system ( between them and their regular crl despite their contributions beir r sig n ifica nt. : m ployees or notice, ; practice Jstice and insecurity, r of their femporary rded from romotions, r stagna nt dispa rity interparts, equally 15 SN,J W.P.No.2005l of2020 . 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. o 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 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-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. L7. ln 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 l6 SN,J W.P.\ ) 10051 of 2020 I U.P, m lia without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the Industrial Disputes Acl, 7947, and that tlh ev enqaoed in essential. De nnial dutir ;,t workers cannot be releoated .erD tual uncertaintv. Wh ile concerns of mu nrclD3I budqet lr tsm erit consid eration, such concerns do not a rolve the Emotover of statutorv oblioations ol neoate equitable entitlements' Indeed. bul:aucratic nnot trumo the leoitima te_ riohts of limitations workmen who have served conti uou lvi r roles f rane nded oeno !'. req u la r cru Coru rt, to the 18. The i MDuqned order of the Hiq extent theY confine the Aooellant Wo kmen to future dailv-w oe enqaqement without I ontinuitv is herebv _;et aside with the followi no dire eaninqful bac waoes ons: I. The discontinuation of the Appellant services, effected without compliance \! 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industri, Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All communications terminating their s: quashed. In consequence, the Appellatt shall be treated as continuing in servic date of their termination, for all including seniority and continuity in ser' Vorkmen's th Section I Dlsputes orders or vices are Workmen : from the purposes, ice. II. The Respondent Employer shall r': nstate the Appellant Workmen in their respectiv t posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously , 11 SN,J W.P.No.20051 of2020 performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment Their entire oe iod of absence (from the date of termination until actual shall be counted for reinstatem ent) contin u itv of service and all conseouential senrofl and eli oromotions, if anv, III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. DDE re n In from the date IV. The Resoon dentE molover is directed to initiate a fair and transoarent orocess for reoula f aztno the A llant Workmen within dulv consideri no the fact that thev have oerformed Derennial municipal duties akin to permanent oosts. assessino reqularizataon, the Employer shall not impose educational or orocedural criteria retroactivelv if such requirements were never applied to the Appellant Workmen or to similarlv situated reqular emDlovees in the oast. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Resoondent Emolover shall expedite all necessary administrative Drocesses to n time em indefinitelv retained on dailv waqes colltrary to statutorv and equitable norms. su re he el

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." l8 SN,] W.P.No 10051 of 2020 d l r(2o17) L2. The ADex c urt rna iudome nt reDo in State of Pu riab and 1S Dreme court Cases 148, others vs Jaoiit Sinqh and others at Paras !i I and its ',erved as t otrr u me 1 2 u under: "54 "The Fult Bench of the High ( < utt, while luded, that tinimum of that the employees ?xceptions. ' the two linimum of exceptions ) impugned adjudicating upon the above controversy had cont temporary employees were not entitled to the r the regular pay-scale, merely for the reaso. activities carried on by daily-wagers and regular were similar. The full bench however, made twc' Temporary employees, who fell in either t exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the t the pay-scate drawn by regular employees- Th'z recoirded by the fult bench of the High Court in t,1 judgment a re extracted hereunder :' tees are n "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractue' appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if apc tinted after undergoing a selection process based uE)n fairness and iquality of opportunity to all ot"er eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum cn the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2) But if dailv waqe rs, ad ho or ! ontractual aoar,n Et reoular ADDOI err servtces i re availed san 'ioned o the State instrumentali sfora Government or its such dailv ad hoc or contractua ADDO l) rtees shall be entitled to minimum of the requl.L pav scale withoitt anv allowances on the assu,l totion that work f oerennial nature is av' ilable tnd havino worked for such lona oeriod of time. i1t eouitable orv c f oersorrs, riaht is created such ca en t lons oeriod i.e. for 7O uouslv. with noti aDDointe I brea , l9 SN,J W.P.No.20051of2020 Their claim for reoulertz tion, if anv, mav have to be considered separately in terms of leqally oermissible scheme, (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 70 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months. "

13. Thq iudqment of the ADex Court reported in 2O1O(9) SCC 247 between: State of Karnataka and others v M.L.Kesari and others, in oarticular, oaras 4 to 9 reads as under: rnataka v. Umadevi was 4. The decision in Sta te o rendered on 10.4.20O6 (reported in 2006 G) SCC 1). In 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 cou rts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the econonic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentali ties, 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 74 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : 20 sN.l W.l'.No 20051 o12020 t 72 81. verefe be clari (7) sc to be con incioles se t needs J here mav "53, One as be cases where irreoular ao oointn'. nts (not tments) as exD ined in s.v. illeq I aoooi r7967 R.Ar. Nara vanaooa Naniundaooa t7972 ( ) scc 4t)91 _ and B.N. Naqa raian 17979G)S 5O7I and ret't rred to in oara 75 above. of dulv oualified DerstZrc in dulv san ioned va ntD mioht heve Q zen made e emolovee have conti, ued t9 work for re butw ithou th int€- 1 vention of rs or guestion orders of the courts or of tribunals. Tl L ' of such of reaularization of the rurces red on merits mav ha btr this ou rt in the lioht of the to andin t_rc light of in the cases a Union of nt, the Sta n India, reou larize inst menta ; of such asa one-ti. zd for ten ,rreou rlv aoooin ls but not rts or of ers of under cover of tribunals and should further ensure l'! at reoular ken to fill tlt ,se vacant t reouire sancti' ed Dosts 'n cases where temoorary emolovee2 or dailv e Drocess must esetinm tion within six m< nths from this d te. "5. It is evident from the above that here is an exception to the general principles against 'r. lularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditior: are fulfilled take s Ds t(L measure, the servrc who ha ulv sa nctione oo eco l! itments are unde be ft lled D. t Gove es shoul, OIJDore w k (i) The employee concerned should have workect br 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without th( benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or ribunal. In other words, the State Government or its ins:rumentality should have employed the employee and conti tued him in service votuntarily and continuously for more tha t ten years. fi) fhe appointment of such employee should "t tt be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are tot made or 2t SN,J W.P.No.2005l of 2020 continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. (iii) Umadevi casts a duty upon the coocerned Government or instrumentalitv, to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed emplovees who had served for more than ten vears without the benefit or Drotection of anv interim otders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi. directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 70.4.20O6).

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 Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumenta lities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in coutts 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 22 SN,J W.P.\c 200-51 oi2020 mentioned in para 53 of umadevi has expired. Tr' exercise shoutd consider all daily-wage/ a employees who had put in 10 years of continuoLr on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of , orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer f'i one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umac'< not consider the cases of some employees who \,v to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, thE concerned should consider their cases also, as a c of the one-time exercise, The one time exetc concluded only when all the employees who are e'r considered in terms of Para 53 of Umade considered. ? one-time lhoc/those service as ny interim d held the vi, but did re entitled emploYer )ntinuation se will be titled to be 'i, are so ,t es obiect is to ensu - fold. First red for e econd is Dra hoc/ asual for ce of e nlovino unals, be fore the date of decision lono oer ds and an ten vears, ular. for more const'itutional or statuto a Uma evi is two I have ,,Ut in mo without the Drotection of anv interim ordet was rendered, are cons vtew of their lono servtce. ind the s,aid direct. ntn 1.,ara 53 of that. :hose who than ten vears of co ntinu us servtce of courts Umadevi oulal ization in ensu 'e that the yttuate the rso,rs on dail waq /ad- hen r eriodicallv ,ve served therebv dell atinq the Drovrs ns .. atinq to ,ntme nt. The true efr ect of the all oersons who have work E I for more lecision in !trim order Umadevil without the orotection of any in of anv court or tribunal. in vacant _ tossessing entitle.C to be oualificat, n, are the reouisite that the reoulariz, tion. The facl: ered for em vet has not unde rtaken s ch (r- :ercise of tecision in reoul' rization within six months of e I Umadevi or that such exercise was underttt, <en onlv in .title such t dise,t reoard to a limited few. will cons, lered for emD vees. reqularization in terms of the above dI ections in Umadevi as a one-time easure. itmeD dire ion is that to be .4.2

9. These appeats have been pending for more th.'t four years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appellant (Zili Panchayat, 23 SN,J W.P.No.2005l of 2020 Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents 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 Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 1to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years 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. L4. In the iudqment of the Apex Court in Nihal Sinqh and others v. State of Pu n ab reDorted in (2O13) 14 SCC I 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 24 SN,J W.P.Nrr. 0051 of 2020 did not render the appellants 'employees' 'f those Banks since the appointment was made by t re State and disciplinary control vested with the Stat'e ' It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of pl sts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the author ty of the State, but af the State did not choose to creah I a cadre but chose to make appointments of personli creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrar''' It also refusedtoa cceot the defence that t ere n er Dr m t fall f the aooellan ioned DOSTS and so there wa s iustifi cati,o n for the State to utilise services of larqe number of p1 ople like for decades. It held th t "s;i rncti ned heaven" a nd that the St3 te has to e them bvacon ious choi ce on th bas ! ;ofsome ratio nal asse sment of need. Referrinq toU I tadevi, it the a oellan s before them ! ,ere not held that arbitrarilv chosen, their initial aopointment vg ls not an had been madetn 'irreoular' a oointme tasi accordance with the statutorv Drocedure l rescribed dtheS te ! annot be und r the Po lce Act,

1861. an Z5 SN,J W.P.No.2005l of2020 heard o sav that thev are not en itled to be a sorbed t es te n nto th accordinq to it, their aDDointments were Durelv temDorarv and n aoainst anv sanctioned DOSts te. It was held that the iudqment in created bv the o Umadevi cannot become a licence for exoloitation bv the State and its instru menta lit es and neit er the Government of Pu n ab nor those Dublic sector Banks can cont nue such a Dra ice inconsistent with their oblioation to function in accordance with the Constitution.

15. The iud qment of the ADex Court reoorted in 2O15 C Onlin 97 inivasulu and Nellore unicioal CorDO ration Reo.bv its Com ission er, ellore D a r desh and h Darticular Daras 7 and 8 reads as under: We find it difficult to acceDt the reasoninq adooted bv (7) Hioh Court. The rioht of the aooe nts to seek reaularization ows from the G.O. No.212 ted 22.4.1994. The aooellant have been n seruice of the first resDondent not onlv orior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even to the issue of G.O till todav. The respondent subseouen Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 2l2(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the 26 SN,J W.P No 20051 of 2020 respondents kept quite for almost 20 lettt s without regularising the service of the appeltants and c( ntinued to extract work from the aPPellants. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit o the above 8. mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opi'1 on, is not jlstified. In the circumstances, the appeal 's allowed 'modifying the order under appeal by directit) t that the appeitanis' services be regularised with effect frt n the date of their completing their five year continuous selice as was taid down ny tnii Court in District Collector/Clt' irperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 480'

16. In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar reoortl d (2O15) 8 SCC 265. the SuDreme Court held that'Thet objective behind the exception carved out in this cas e was to permit regularization of such appointment, t rrhich are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appc intments, which are irregular but not illegal, and ! q--€Mu-re ose De ons _ who had securrtvofe molovm ntoft Government an I thei r nta ! ities for more than ten v emolo e was workin In that for 29 vei! 's. This r x

4.L.Ke sarl extracted above, 27 SN,J W.P.No.2005l of 2020 L7. In state r|f a n v a K d r P asad reDorted in I a,a1 a\ 7S tmt r was taken brr+ h Supreme Court and it was held as follows : -^alia.,-) 'sh -1,^ ,-ho,r contira le laid tlovtn hw fhi< Court in Uma "47.... In view of the ceteoorical findinq of fact on the relevant contentious issue that the respondent than 70 vears continL' o ly therefore, the leqal n D nctD (State of Karnataka v Umadevi (2O06) 4 SCC 7 : 2OOG <fr ,+ ^- ra 5,2 ear'-r.atv ,ha The Division Bench of the Hioh Court Dresent cases has riohtlv held thet the resDondent emDlovees are entitled forth e relief- the same cannot be interfered with bv this Court." -ccl 7?l a,r''riaa

18. The Judgment of this Court dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.276O2 ot 2O19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2023 dated 10.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.

19. The iudqment of the Aoex Court in Hari Krishna MandirTr ust V- Stateof Maharashtra and Others 28 SN,J W.P l'l( 2005 t of 2020 AI Da rtacular Dara Nos.1O Oan d 101 eld as follo v's: 20 r me urt 39 ,) and tn "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdi( [ion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no: only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or ir of mandamus, but are dutv-bound to exel Do er, wh ere the Government or _ a oublic rha; wronolv auth ritv has failed to exercise retion c nferred uoon it bv a exe ised di olicv decislgn of the statute, or a rule, ora Govern ment or has exercrsed such d iscr tion fide, or on irrelevant nsideration. :he n C

101. In all such cases, the High Court must i;sue a writ of mandamus and give directions t I compel performance in an appropriate and lawful mil lner of the discretion conferred upon the Government rr a public authoritY. " Bench of thi

20. Tnq Divis dated 10.06. O13 Das edinW .A.Nos.7 2 ol' 2O1O and 854 of 2OL2 while uoholdin o the Judorrr lnt s Court in its _ rudoment

08.o9.2010 assed in W.P.No' 24377 of .., |OOT and c.c. o.48 of 2 OO8 obse ed as un der: - "Further, it is manifest from the material on rec services of the similarly placed persons who ap 1 law Courts were regularized. The appellant-Corl issued various office o rders/circula rs dated iL.O9.1992,06.10.2007 and latest being 4 regularization of casual/contract employees, It seen that Section 25-T of the ID Act prohibits practice by any employer or workman' As can t the factual scenario of the cases on hand, e rrd that the roached the oration also 20.t2.t989, 7.2009 fot ; also to be nfair labour e seen from rgaging the 29 SN,J w.P.No.2005l of 2020 respondents for such a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of Section 25-1 of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respondents are entitled to regularization as directed in the impugned orders, as the 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. " 2L. The Divasion Bench of this Court an its ,udqment dated 19.09.2017 Dassed in W.P.No.272l7 of 2-Ol7 reDorted in 2O18(2)ALD oaqe 282 at para 16 and para 18 observe as 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 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, 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 absorption/regu la 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.t994, 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 regularization/absorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 1OO and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22'4.1994, do not whittle down the ur dr h an t he iudoment in l,laniula Bashini's case (suora), do not Iower the traiectorv of the directions issued bv th SuDreme Court in Para 53 30 SN,J W.P.No 2005I of2020 t is, I a). :s to take 12, dated rtitioners, who have . adm ttedlv. satisfie dth criteria aid down ,vi's case inP ara N .53 of the iu domen (supra). inU al,

18. For the aforementioned reasons, or( 27.6.2017, in OA No.1442 of 2074, on the file of t is set aside and the writ Detition is allowe! t o d rces of the Detit ioners aoarnst tl of he se KI f v 1e subt ecttot heir sa isfvino the criteria lai do No. 3 of the iudo ment in Uma De 's case (r;r the date of recetD tofa ar, dated re Tribunal with the rlarisation e existino int them vn in Para rpra). This eco oleted within two m G nths from ovoft his ord er." o a n r

22. The Divisi on Be ch of this C urt an its _ ludoment !O in 1of dated 21.04. 2020 Dassed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O reI orted tn DDaoe 37 atD aras 45. 48 an( Dara5O .P.No -23057 of 20L9 20 o(4)A 20 9 as nde "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have l) ren working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almos: (30) years of service 5y no*' They have been given mir mum time- scale from ihe y"al. 2000. They have been :ontinuously working without any Court orders in thelr favo 'l from 1990 till date. 44. Itisn ot known whv the 1 foll wed t e deci resD nde nt has not ion tn Uma Devi's c se suora), as _ rndertaken o dailv waoe 1 ten ( 10) :ourts and _ them to a o e rs wit out t as on r e intervention 06 an sI i's 4 I 3l SN,J W-P,No.20051 of 2020 process verification as to whether they are workinq vacant Dosts and Dossess aoa inst reou isite oualifications for the posts, and if so, reoularize their services,

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one-time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of the resDondents a re di cted to reoularize on India; one-ttme trasis Det tion e f s's e rvices from the date each of the petitioners complete 10 vears of service on daily waoes from the initial dates of their appointment. But, r li f. Th i a.l +a =nrr said exercise shal be done within two (2) weeks from the date of rece Dto f coDv of the order." ha en i rn^ha+ h

23. This Court ootnes thati n the Dresent case, the a ischa r e dents f it the reouest of th e Det ioner for reqularization of Detitioner's services. who is workinq as full time rt o consid r his request cont!n oent w rker andfu to treat the mDorarv servtce of the o itioner in the t last orade oost of full time continqent worker as reoular one for a il Durooses hv ora ntino last orade Dav with Deriodical increment revtse frorn time to time from the date of aDDoin tment of the Detitaoner, in accordance to law. SN,J W.P.)1, .2005I of 2020 ise ! titled for 24. This Court opines that Detitioner consr eration of Detition er's case for qrant of the relief as Dra ved for in he oresent writ Petation an .ew of the in va rrous observati ons of the ADex Court i rdoments i:w of the Divisi on Bench of this Cou in the Jud omenjt ; ref rred to and extracted a bove.

25. Takino into considerati on:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learnttr I counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner anr I learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the rr :spondent Nos.2 & 4. c) The observations of the Apex Court in tl re various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: i)(2o2o) l scc (L&s) (ia) 1990(2) scc Pase 396 (iii) 2025 rNSC 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) l scc 148 33 SN,J Vr'.P.No.20051 of2020 (vi) 2o1O(9) scC 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Ontine SC 1797 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014)7 scc223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, Page234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated

10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O and 854 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment dated O8.O9.2O1O passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated

19.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.27217 ot 2O17 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in LA.Nos.1 ot 2O2O in I of 2Ot9 and W.P.No.23057 of 2019 (referred to and extracted above). 34 SN,] W.P.N r 10051 of 2020 g) In the light of discussion and conctusion il ; arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the presel t order' o reo ula Th Writ Petiti nts the oel:i :ion rrs directed to out-forth the claim of the Deti ! oner for ices, and also the titioner's se rizationof of the Detita ner to treat the temporarI Servlces e last orade Dost of (l rntinoent itionerln req ar on for all ourposes bv qril rtinq last oav with eriod ical incremen ts revised rom time to time from the date of appointment of the- letitioner seouential be efits, dulv en losi 1 o all the and all co SUDD rt of oetitione r ; caseas a period of rel ant d ocum out-fo rth in the Dresent writ oetitio n. with ln, one (O1) week from the date of receipt of cI ov of the ord er and he resDondent s shal I examin eanI consider n itv with ents i 1 w ri nc a IDortu n itv ofD ersona! hea rin to the Detitioner in term of orders in Um a Drt rvi's case Dassed bv the SuDreme Court reported an 2006(4) SCC Paoe 1. the iudomE nt Dassed 35 SN,J W.P.No.2OO5l of 2020 in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 dated 08.09.2010 reDorted in 2011 (1) ALD. Paoe 234 and as confirmed in W.A.No.7 82 of 2O1O dated 10.06.2013, and al so as oer Division Be ch Judoment of this Court dated (X)7 reoorted

19.09.2O17 Dassed in W.P.No.272t7 of in 2O18(2)ALD oaoe 282 and also the Division Bench .Iudoment of this Court dated 21.O4.2O 2O oassed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O 2O in 1 ol 2O!9 in W.P.No. 23fJ57 of 2O19 reoorted in 2O2O(4)ALD oaoe 379 which had attained finalitv. within a DE r iod of four (O4) w eks from the e of recei t of this ord kin int considera tion the observations and the law Iaid down bv the Aoex Court in the various iudqments ( fe red to r and extracted above ). and in oarticular, oara No.53 of the iudq ent of the Aoex Court in the case o State of v. Uma Devi and dulv commun icate the decision to the oetitioner. However, there shall be no Karnata order as to costs. i I I I I I ! I 36 SN.] W.P l.l r.20051 of 2020 M iscella neous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. Sd/.A.H.S. (; )WRI SHANKAR ASSf.I:, NT REGISTRAR ,..,.-- //TRUE COPY// One fair copy to THE HON'aLE MRS JUSTICE U (For Her Lordship's Kind Perus r) S,I PAI CTION OFFICER Lt NANDA To, '1. The District Collector, (Panchayats) and Ctrairm-an 9f !in!11 tm.Wages com;''tiee, is per Minimum Wage! Rct,tsaS of Adilabad t) strict, 2. fhe Zilla Praja Parishad, Rep. by its Chief Executive Office r Adilabad' 3. The Deputy Executive EnEineer (Panchayat Raj), Adilabad I )istrict 4.TheMandalParishadDevelopmenlofficer,AdilabadMan(lilandDistrict. 5. The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Ec :cation Department, Telanlana Secretariat, Hyderabad. 6- 1'l L.R. Copies. 7. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Jus ice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

8. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Lib 'ary, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad

9. One CC to Sri CH. Ganesh, Advocate [OPUC] 10.One CC to Sri G. Narender Reddy, SC for TG ZPP MPP Ct PS [OPUC] 1 1 . Two CC to The GP for Parlchayat Rai, High Court for the {i1 rte of Telangana, at HyderabadlOUTl

12. Two CC to The GP for Education, High Court for the State rf Telangana, at Hyderabad[OUT]

13.Two CD Copies TJ PMK N/ HIGH COURT C; ) TODAY DATED:2810712025 ORDER WP.No.20051 of 2020 C.; .!.t A\- () LL I .$.' "$\ \ H ,t (:. \'t/]n }'\i *ti Ui t\ .,,i ALLOWING FTHE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \y