At this juncture, it is ro be noted that in Nihal Singh v. State of Punjabr, the Hon, ble Supreme Court observed as follows

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, by decraring the action of the 4th respondent in rejecting the craim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment vide Proc'RC.No. 646tA112017, dated 11.og.2017 on the ground that the petitioner mother has not furfifled the conditions/guiderines issued vide G.o.No. 1 .r 2, dated 23.07 .1997 as void, ilegar, arbitrary, unconstitutionar and viorative of Articre 14 and 16 0f the constitution of rndia and consequenfly setaside the same and to declare and hord that the petitioner mother services were deemed to have been regularized as per G.O. (p) No. 112, dated 23.07.1gg7 in view of long length of service rendered by her with all consequential benefits, by taking into consideration the Judgment of the Hon'bre supreme court in Nihar Singh V state of Punjab reported in (2013) 14 scc 65 and consequenfly direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as per G.o.MS.No.118, dated 18.0g.1999 in any suitabre post as per his quarification with all consequonl:ial benefits and to pass such other order cr or'ders as this Hon'ble Court may jee m, fit, proper and necessary in the ci'cunrstat'ces of case' (Prayer is amended as per C.O dt.29tOBt2O23 in lA 01/2023) l.A. NO :1OF201 -ZIWE 'MP. NO: 29435 oF 20 171 Petition urLder Siection 151 CPC praying that in the circJms ances stated intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighcourtnraylrepleasedto direct the respordernts to consider the case of the petitioner fc'r atplintment on compassionate€lroUn(lsdulyregularizingtheservicesofoetitroner.,t;motheras FullTimeSweeperbyoassingorderonrepresentationsubmitledr;n19.9-2007' 1 3-1 1 -2O1 5. 27 -li'2o1 i and 06-06-201 7 Counsel for the Fetiti'rner: SRI BHARAT SHAH FOR SRI D'LINGA Rr\O Counsel for the Resprndents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the f'rllowing: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITI ON No.23 783 of 2Ol7 ORDER: The petitioner,s mother was appointed as a part_time sweeper in the 4th respondent_District Education Ofhce, Jagitiaf, on 27.72.1984. She expired on 14.06.2015, while in service. The petitioner approached the 4ft respondent seeking compassionate appointment, however, his request was rejected vide order dated ll.O9.2Ol7; hence this writ petition.

2. Heard Mr. Bharat Shah, learned counsel represenfing Mr. D Linga Rao, learned counsel on record for the petitioner; and learned Government pleader for Services_I. perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, making submissions on the lines of writ a_ffidavit, contends that the petitioner,s mother had rendered services as Sweeper for over three decades, and therefore denying the benefit of regularization under G.O. (p) No.l12 dated 23.07.7997, on the sole ground that she did not complete ten years of service as stipulated under the G.O., and contiruri&g her as a temporary worker until 2oI5 (till the date of 2 W.P.N ).:13783 of 2017 NBK,J her demist:) aul further rejecting the case of l-he petitioner for compassio:-rate appointment is illegal and arbitr'ary ' Learrte C (iovernment Pleader justifies tLre irapugned 'pr:titicne r''r; mother 4 . rejection C)rrlcr dated and contends that the was not t:d ucrrtionally qualihed for appointnlenl- ari full-time sweeper, iurd rer case was not eligible unde- G O (r:') No' 1 12' and furth<:r t}r,:re was no clear vacancy/ sarrctione,c p<lst against she could heLtrr been reguiarized, and therefore th'r claim of petitioner ibr compassionate appointment' by der:rning his mother as; zr rcgular employee, cannot arise' ald henc': there is no illegali ty in the impugned Order'

5. Having considerecl the respective submissiorLs arlrl perused the recortl , it-rs to be noted that the factual aspec: of the mother of the petiliorrr:r, having been appointed as a svreef'er in 1984 and her cont.inuation as such until her demise in 2Ol5 are not in dispute. T'he only aspect is whether the petitioner's claim for compassiorla.te appointment, considering his mother as 'deemed to be regrlrrrized' can be upheld in the facts o1'the car';e ' 1 i 3 W.PNo.23783 of 2017 NBK,I 6 At this juncture, it is ro be noted that in Nihal Singh vs. State of Punjabr, the Hon, ble Supreme Court observed as follows: 78- .....The creation of a cad_re or sanctioning of posts Jbr a cadre is a matter exclusiuelg u,tithin the authoitg of the State. That the State did not chnose to cieate a cad.re but chose to make appointments of person s creating contractual relationship onlg demonstrates tle arbitrary nature of the exercise of the pouer auailoble under Section 17 of the Act. The appointments made houe neuer been tenninated therebg enabling uaious bonks to utilise the seruices of emplogees of the State for a long period on nominal uages and u.tithout making auailable ang other sentice beneftts uthich ore auailable to tlLe other emplogees of the State, utho are discharging functions similar to tLLe functions that ore being discharged, bg the appellants.

79. No doubt that the pou)ers und.er Section 77 are meant for meeting the exigencies contemplated. under it, such a.s, riot or disturbance uhich. are normallg expected_ to be of a short duration. Tlrerefore, tLrc State might not haue initia g thought of creating either a cad.re or permonent posts.

20. But ue do not see ang justifi_cation for the State to toke a defence that after permitting the utili,sation of tLe seruices of a large number of people tike tLrc appellants for decad.es to sag thot there are no sanctioned. posts to absorb the appellants. Sanctioned posts do not falt from lrcauen. The State has to create them bg a conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment of the need.. " It is also relevant to note that in a recent case in Shripal Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabadz, tl.e Hon,ble Supreme Court 7 observed as follows: '(zor:) r+ scc es 4 W.P.N ).::3783 of 2017 NBK,I . . l.t. N{ore importantly, Urna Devi calnot se rve 1ri a itistify exploitative engagements p:rsir;tin! for shield 1 o undertaking krgiti; n lte years '"\'it -lout the which shows no tlue recru.tr']er.1 . Given contrlcLorlased arrangement and a consist'lnt nee'I for perm tnett - horticultural staff the alleged assrlrte(l ba n on fresh rr:cr -.: itment, though real, cannot justify inde lirrite dailr'w-agt status or continued unfair practicrls' Employer the record

15. It is manifest that the Appellant \Vc'rl':nen continrtor:s11- rendered their services over several 1e'rrs' some titnr:; spanning more than a decade' Even if ct'r"ain mus1e1 rolls were not produced in full' the Empl'ryer's failu:-e to lurnish such record s-despite direction s rc do so-allru'; an adverse inference under well-e stablished laborrr ju't sprudence. Indianlabour law strollgly di sl a'rors perpet,,rzLl daily-wage or contractual engagelnenr's in circttrr sl-tLnces where the work is permanent in n rture' Morirlly ard legatly, workers who fulhl ongoLng lnurri<:ipal requirt:m':nts year after year cannot irc lisni;sed as dispensable, particularly in the a bsetlt:e of summafl \ agreement' At this ju.rcttrr':, it a g,ln Llirie contractor to recall the broader c ril-i<rt e of would bt: incle htrit-t '' temporaq,/' employment practices as Con:r by a recenl -rtdgement of this court in Jaggo v' Union of Indias' rn 'he following paragraphs: appropriate ^2i,1. The pervasive misuse of tenlpol a ry r:mpLc,1'ment contracts, as exemplified in th:s cirse, ref[e,: -s a broader systemic issue that aclver';ely ' (202s) tNsc :iaa '1zoz+1 tttsc Lo:a t I I t I I : I I i I WPNo.23783 of 2017 NBK,J aifects workers' rights and job securit5r. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by Iack of benehts, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedentthat can erode public trust in governmental operations.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that tempora_ry employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: . Mbuse of "Temporary" Lnbels: Emplogees engoged fo, u.tork that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an instihttion qre ofren labelled as 'temporary" or "controcfual," euen ttLen their r.oles mirror those of regular emplogees. Such mtsclassification d.epriues u.torkers of the dtSnttA, secuitg, and 6 Wt'.N ) 23783 of 2017 N8K,] ben,;ftts thot regular emplogees are entitleo to. c espite performing identicol tasks' . .Arbitrary Termination: Temporaryt (:nl+{oaees a're frequentty rlismissed rpithout ( rtu;e or notice, as seen in the present L:ase' :.,'hi:, practice undermines the pinciples of trat rol justice and subjects utorkers to tt ,;t<t e oi constant insecttitg, regardle';s of 17a,,- quality or duration of their seruice' , I ttck of Career Progression: Temporarq em,t[ogees ofien find themselues exc]udeC .Fro,tn opportunities for skill deuelopment' orcmotions, or incremental pag raises They rentain stagnant in their roles' creat{ng a syr;temic dispaitg betute-en them ond their ,Zgilo, counterqorts, desPite their cot Ltibutions being equallg significant' . t rsirrg Outsourcing as a Shield: Instittttiorts in,creosinglg resort to outsourcing rokts pefor-med bY tem7orary emPLL';Yees' -e,flbctiuetg replacing one set of exploitetd ,riurk r" tuith another' This practice nctt onlg perpetuates exploitation but rlernonstrates a deliberate effort to bgpass thz obligation to offer regular emplogment ' L)<tnial of Basic Rights and Benefit5; 'lianporary emplogees are often denied .tiniamental benefls such as p('nsi()n' ln.ouident fund, heatth insurance' anC prtid l.ecue, euen when their tenure sqans (lecod-es. This lack of social sealritA :;t hjects them and their families to unaue hrdship, especiallg in cases of illness ' rtlirement, or unforeseen citatmstances ' " In ttLe instant case, the petitioner's mothel has been 8. appointed, ir accordance with law, by an :rppoint In ent order, 7 WP-No.23783 of 2017 NBK,J and she has been in service as of the year 1992 when the G.O.(p) No. 112 was issued in 1992, stipulating the condition of ten years of service as on 25.11.1993. Though she is said to have not fulfilled the condition of ten years of service as of 1993, it is not in dispute thar she died in 20 15 while in service. Further, her representations of the year 2OOZ and,2015 are pending for consideration. There is no denial that the petitioner,s mother has rendered services for over three decades, and there is nothing placed on record to show the efforts of respondent-authorities for reg,lar recruitment by considering the candidature of mother of the petitioner. Admittedly, the respondent_authorities having availed the seryices of the petitioner,s mother for over three decades, cannot deny the benefit of regularization merely on the ground that there is/was no sanctioned post. The petitioner,s mother cannot be faulted for availability or non_availability of clear vacancy, as creation of vacancy is within the domain of respondent authorities, a,d further when the authorities have utilized her services for three decades, they calnot parrot the sarne excuse of non-availability of clear vacancy. The rationale in the judgment of Umadewi (supraf and also the judgment in Shripal (supra|, and Jaggo (supraf is applicable to the facts of the present case, and therefore, this court is of the considered \ 8 W.Pi c. 13783 of 2017 N8K,I view that thr: petitioner's mother shall be deenred to hzLve been regularized , n accordalce with law. And therelbre' tht :ejection of the cast: of 1>etitioner for compassionate appointme nt cannot be upheld. g. Accordinlily, the Writ Petition is allowed' setring zLside the rejection ()r'rler dated ll Og'2017 issued by 4rr' reripolrclent' The 2.d respon dr:nt-commissioner is directed to consicer the case of the petitic,n,:r for compassionate appointmenl.' in ar'y suitable post, and prtss appropriate ord'ers within a period of eight weeks from the d ati of receipt of a copy of this orcier' I,.lo costs' Miscellant:o'.rs petitions pending, if any, shall stantl cl< 'sed' That Rule Nisi has l:een made absolute as above' WitnessTHEHON'ISLETHEACTINGCHIEFJUSTICESUJOYPIiUL'onthis THURSDAY. Tt-,E SIXTH Oni oiieenuARy rwo THOUSAND AND'11 /ENTY FlvE SD/-P, t'onna Krishna ...AS$ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 'i SEr::'flON OFFICER To 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PSK. BS The Prirrcical Secretary to Government, School Education Derpartment' Secreta'iat, F yderabad, State Of Telangana i[J 6J,rii'it,'ionei ana'Directoi of SchSol Education' Gcverrrntent of Telanoa nzr. rvderabad, Telangana State' The Dlstrir;t C'ollector, Jagtial, Jagital District' tfre Orstri.x Educational Officer, Jagital, T'S' o"'" ci' ti,'s,lt-DriNGA RAo, Adv-ocate [oPU91 . i*6 di,.:.o1;pFoa senvicEs-t, High court for the state of relangana' at Hyderabad. OUTI Two CEt Cop es , g i l HIGH COURT DATED:06 tO212025 ORDER WP.No.2378it of 2017 r: "==t ..t/t"" " /,. t, ,< 416 I \. i\\ ,, 1B JIN zffi ,1; rq p 1it rs' i i I I ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C:OSTS @o{' W + .1, a-.