The High Court · 2025

Order

Heard Sri Ch, Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I apgr:aring on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and t;'i Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned Standing Counsel apl rearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 and 5.

2. The petitioner aDoroached the Corl't seekino oraver as under: "...to issue an order or directioi particularly one in the nature of Writ of Manrl declaring the indecision of the respondents l not treating the services oF the petitioner ar; from the date of initial appointment of and fo| the petitioner as Bonded labour by paying wage denying to pay legitimate wages as per i 13 & 15 of Wages Act 1948 and living wag(: Article 39(d) & 43 of our Constitution rr:r provisions of Equal Remuneration Act 1 subjecting petitioner to exploitative enslaverr to helpless conditions of poverty, poo| economical, political educational background r imus in )rein in regular :reating )ittance .ections as pei d with )76 in rnt due social, ;pite of 4 SN,J wP tt4t2 2023 abolition of Bonded Labour as per Act 1976 in his 40 long years of continuous service as unconstitutiona l, highly illegal and prays to direct the Respondents herein to treat the services of petitioner as regular from date of initial appointment w.e.f., 06.0g.19g3 in the Last grade post based on principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of prem Singh Vs State of U.P. (2019 (1) SCC 516) and in Netram Sahu Vs. State of Chhattisgarh in C.A.No.12S4 of 2018, dt.23.03.2018 by reckoning contingent services rendered by the petitioner for computation of qualifying service to grant pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits with all consequential monetary benefits on par with regularly engaged last grade employees along with periodical increments, as revised from time to time with arrears of pay by granting 100o/o compensation as per principle laid by Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Avtar Chand in C.A. No.3416-3 445 of 20LO & Batch Cases dated 19- O2-2O19 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by applying judgement rendered in the case of Government of A.p. Vs. V.N.Venkaiah (2018(4) ALD 590 (DB) also the principte laid by full bench of this Hon'ble High Court in W.A.No.1222 of 1999 & 8atch, dated 16-10-2000 that the under age or over is not criteria to deny the regularization of services of the contingent employees as per settled position of law declared by Apex Court in C.A.No.5525 of 2Ol2 & Batch cases, dt. 13.02.2018 under Artlcle 141 of our Constitution of India by this Hon'ble Court in this case of petitioner treating him as similar not dissimilar as per Apex Court orders in 5 SN,J \ P 18412 2023 C.A.No.6260-6261 of 2021, dt. 26.t0.2O2L, (2O2t (6)ALD 285(SC) and pass such order or ord(rr; with costs in the interest of justice."

3. Learned counsel aopearinq on beh; lf of the lacino reliance on the avermenl made in Detitioner the affidavit filed in suooort of the orr ;ent writ oetition oertaininq in oarticular, to thr)- servaces v irat t 6 n rwt th the racnnnrla I ts herein rcndcrarl for.more than a decade contends that the D,e:itioner is entitled for the relief as oraved for in the orj rsent wrat petitaon. PERUSED T E RECORD:- DISCUSSIO N AND CONCLUSION:- 4. Learned counsel appearinq on beh lf of the oetationer submits that the subiect iss gr in the Dresent case is souarelv covere bv the or g er of this a Court, dated O8.O9.2O10 oassed in W.P.Ntl 24377 ot 2OO7 reoo ed in 2O11(1) ALD. Pa o e

234 as_:onfirmed lll A Illa t2 10 dat 12 I order. dated 19.09.2O17 passed in W.P.N(2272L7 of ed in 2O18 2 ALD Pa e28 I I also the h 6 SN,J wP tt4t2 2023 rd r d 2L. 20 dinW 2 2O19 reoorted in 2O2O(4) ALD paoe 379.

5. Learned standino counsel aooearinq on behalf of f h nt No.4 mits h e res orth in d h e th h n m on th n h flevan r e dh n n h n etiti n Manda mus can be issued aoain st the resoondents reu nd r ht for l ut- r h e b ev n Dut-forth in the oresent rit Petition bv avofa detailed reoresen tation to the resoondents herein and uoon receiot of the said reDresentation, the resoonde nts would consid er the same in a rda nce to law, within a asonable oeriod. ...,,- 7 SN,J ' ry t8412 2023 6 Learned counsel aoDearino on behi lf of the oetitioner does nrrt dls Dutet eqa d crrhml ;l ion made h bv the learned standinq counsel aooearino- on behalf of the respondent No.4

7. The Aoex Court in the iudqment r e lorted in (20201 1 scc (L&s) in Prem Sinoh v Stall, of Uttar Pradesh and others. at oara 36 held as undc:r : "36. There are some of the employees who l- r been regularized in spite of having rende- services for 30-40 or more years whereas th3 been superannuated. As they have worked work-charged establishment, not againr;l particular project, their services ought to ha / regularized under the Government instructiot even as per the decision of this Court in 1; Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Cour: said decision has laid down that in case servi(€ been rendered for more than ten years witl( cover of the Court's order, as one-time measJ services be regularized of such employees. facts of the case, those employees who have for ten years or more should have been regular would not be proper to regulate thr: consideration of regularization as others ha,/, regularized, we direct that their services be tro, a regular one. However. it is made clear tt i shall not be entitled to claiming any dues oF diFl in wages had they been continued in service r€ before attaining the age of superannuation. Tl( be entitled to receive the pension as if the 1 retired from the reoular establishment ;1 services rendered bv them riqht from tt thev entered the shall be counted as ouali puroose of oension." ve not d the ,have n the : been s and ate of in the ; have ut the 'e, the .n the rorked zed. It r for ted as t they lrence lularly y shall d the e day ork-charqed establi:i rment ino servt ( : for 8 SN,J wP 1E412 2023 h u s D a PWD Literate Da ilv Waqe Em lovee Asso iation Vs. State of reDorted i 1990( 2) SCC Paoe 396 tes ould ot kee aDe n laid Dnnct le that the t havetot at suc Derso sasr qular ne. o f h rt in the State of Ka rnata ka and others Vs. e n Uma devi, dated 1O .04.200 6 reoo 006) 4 scc 1 is extracted hereunder:- "53 One sDect needs esw rel be cl rified. There a Naravana Dar 1967 RI L972 Na a raia n JL979 (4) SCc 507I and c a (1) 1

81. n .v .N. B rred toin d e of r 5 !on e f u h ula ri w ou u m on of a fn that context, this iudqment India. the State Governments e rum tali shou I e Th d r! h the Unionof z 9 SN,J vP t84t2 2023 sure, the setvacr3 ; of such as a one-time fii d, who have wo rl< :d for ten irreoularlv aoooi vears or more in duly sanctioned po :s but not rders of the corrts or of under cover of tribunals and should further ensure t! at reqular recruitments are undertaken to fill th! se vacant sanctioned Dosts that require to be fi led uo, in ceses u,here temnrtrerrr crnnlavaer or dailv waoers are beino now emDloved, T I e orocess must be set in m ion within six m,) lths from this date. ....

10. The iudoment of the Apex Co! rt dated 2O.L2.2O24. reoo in 2024 LawSuit(S(l 12O9 in Jaooo Anata and others v. Union of India it rd others, and the relevant oaraoraph Nos.12, 13, 24,.., '.6,27 and 28 are extra hereunder: "12. Despite being labelled as "part-tirne workersr" the appellants perforrn ed these essential tasks on a daily a rd continuous basis over extensive perio, ls, ranging from over a decade to nearly ': vo decades. Their engagement was r ot sporadic or temporary in nature, insteri d, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to I ire responsibilities typically assocaated v, th sanctioned posts. Moreover, l1e respondents did not engage any ott er personne! for these tasks during t 1e appellants tenure, underscoring t 1e indispensable nature of their work. 13. The claim bv the resoondents t! at these were not reoular oosts lacks mr1 !! as the nature of the work oerformed_ 2y the aI, ennial ,r rd was De t! l0 SN,J wP 18412 2023 a) amental to the fu nction ino of nature of these duties offices. The recurring sification as regular necessitates their clas posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noieworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appeilants' 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 Corpordtion 197 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 lassified 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 Coipoiations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee bene-fits, thereby increasing their profits' This judgment underscores the principle that the nat-ure of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the It corresponding hiqhliohts s and r r r ive fa tr t rig hts and benefits. lassif su h reatment. s 1t SN,J r\P t84t2 2023 h

26. While the judgment in Uma I :vi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointm: tts adhered to constitutional principles, i: is regrettable that its principles are cf en misinterpreted or misapplied to <ll ny Iegitimate claims of long serving employe :s. This judgment aimed to distinguish betu,r en "illegal" and "irregular" appointm€ r ts. It cateooricallv h ldt at emoloveel;in irreoular aoooi ments, who v\ _( rre enoaoed in dulv sanctioned Dosts and had served contin uouslv for more tl. an ten vears should be considered 'or reoularization as a one-time measu'e. However, the laudable intent of the judgnr :nt is being subverted when institutions rell on its dicta to indiscrifninately reject the cltri ns of employees, even in cases where t t eir appointments are not ille$al, but merely l, ck adherence to procedural formali:i :s. Government departments often cite he judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue t rat no vested right to regularization exists 'or temporary employees, overlooking he judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cir es where regularization is appropriate. li lls selective aDDlicati on distorts I he iudqment's soi t DUrD( I tC..' effectivel Y vveaDontzrno aqa irrst emolovees who have rend€ I ed indisoensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in ,,ur opinion, it is imperative for governnr :nt departments to lead by example in provi,l ng fair and stable employment. Engarl ng workers on a temporary basis for exter r ed periods, especially when their roles re integral to the organization's functioning, ot only contravenes international latr, ur 12 - SN,J wP 18412 2023 standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and 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 betterment of labour practices in the country. 2A. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated

27.10.20L8 are quashed ; However ii. The appellants shall be taken back on dutv forthwith and services reqularised forthwith. aopellants shall not be entitled to anv oecuniarv benefits/back waqes for the period thev have not worked for but would be entitled to continuitv of services nd the sam rI would be counted for their Dost- retiral benefits." r h

11. The Judqment of the Aoex Court dated 31.O1.2O25 reDorted in 2025 INSC 144 in "SHRIPAL l3 SN,J \ P 184t2 2023 AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM. GT{AZI I BAp". in oarticular, the relevant oara Nos.15 tr2 19 are extracted hereunder: u I "15. It is manifest that the Aooellant- JVorkmen continuouslv rendered their servi3 es over several years, sometimes sDanninq m re than a decade. Even if certaan muster rolls ,vere not oroduced in full, the Emolover's failure_:o furnish such records-desoite directions to do g o-allows an adverse inference under well-eg tablished . Indian labour la 'stronolv labour iurisoruden disfavors perpetua! dailv-waqe or <:g ntractua I enoaoements in ci mstances where the work is oermanent in nature. Morallv ar I leqally, workers who fulfil onooino _ nunicioal reouirements vear after vear cg lnot be dismissed summarilv as disoensable, 16 rticularlv in the absence of a qenuine ( ontractor aqreement. At this juncture, it would be i ppropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "l employment practices as done by a recent of this court in Jaggo v. Union of Irrr following paragraphs: udg emen t lia in the 3m pora ry" "22. The pervasive misuse of employment contracts, as exemplif i case, reflects a broader systemic adversely affects workers' rights security. In the private sector, the risr economy has led to an increase ir tem pora ry )d in this ssue that and job of the gig preca rious 14 SN,J wP 18412 2023 employment arrangements, often Gharacterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards, Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principtes 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 precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, pa rticularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: .Misuse of "Temoorarv" L bels: Emol ovees enoa ed for work ess ntial. teqral to t e functio nino of recurrinq, and i institution are often labelle "tem orarv" or "contra ctual," even when reoular emolovees. Such misclass ification de rlves wor ers of reou la r entitled to, de oite oerf rminq identical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and irror those of the diqnitv, securitv. emolovees ts that that is I J I 15 SN,J tP t84t2 2023 constant rr'duration ogression: hemselves for skill rental pay leir roles, them and rite their subjects workers to a state ()l insecurity, regardless of the quality of their service. . Lack of Career ) Temporary employees often find excluded from opportunities development, promotions, or increr raises. They remain stagnant in t creating a systemic disparity betwe€r their reg ular counterparts, de:; contributions being equally signiflcant . Using Outsourcing as a Shield: nstitutions increasingly resort to outsourc ng roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited .wt -kers with another. This practice not only t erpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates i deliberate effort to bypms the obligation to cf er regular em ployme nt. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits femporary employees are often denied lt ndamental benefits such as pension, provident i nd, health insurance, and paid leave, even r rhen their tenure spans decades. This lacl. of social security subjects them and theil amilies to undue hardship, especially in case!; of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstar( es." 16. The High Court did acknowledge the imployer,s inability to justify these abrupt to minations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagemert on daily wages with some measure of parity in mir mum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precaricI sness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginall,' improved yet still uncertain status. While the l- igh Court recognized the importance of their work an I hinted at 16 wP l84l SN,J 2 2023 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, 1947, and that thev were enoaqed in ess€ntial. Derennr al duties. workers can ot be leoated to oerD etua I r al bu m nl ent r e m n cons ideration. such con rns do not abso lve the over of statutorv oblioatio nsorn qate EmD eout ble en tlements burea u ratic lim itations cannot trum the leoitimate r o hts of Indeed, facto reoular ro es for an nded oeriod. 18 The imouo ed order of the Hi h Court. to the exten thev confi e the Aooella nt Workmen to u a n a t with contin uiW or mea ninqful bac waoes. is herebv set asi de with the llowino dir tons: I. The discontinuation Workmen's services, of the effected Appellant without a t7 SN,J t{P t8412 2023 compliance with Section 6E and S,: :tion 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Acl:, 'L947 , is declared illegal. All orders or conr lunications terminating their services are (lr rashed. In consequence, the Appellant Worknrr rn shall be treated as continuing in service front the date of their termination, for all purpos€s. including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall r-r instate the Appellant Workmen in their respecti\ e posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from he date of this judgment. Their entire peraod J ,fa ence (from the date of termination rg rtil actual reinstat ement) shall be co ntcd for continuaw of service and all cotl;eouential benefits, such as seniori and eli ribility for oromotions, if anv. III. Considering the length of s;r rvice, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitlerl to 500/o of the back wages From the date of their discontinuation until their actual reir statement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three monttrr from the date of their reinstatement. u rts g irected to rv- The Resoon ent Em D in itia e a fair and transDa ntl 1 'ocess for inq the Aooella t Workrr en reoula ri stx months from the d of rein! tatement, dulv considerinq the fact that J hev have performed oerennial munaciDal d rties akin to Dermanent Dosts asse stnq reo ula rization, the E Dlover _;hall not tmDose educational or orocedurr rl cr teria retroactivelv if such reouirem g nts were never a Dlied to the Ao ellant Wt rrkm nor to similarlv situated reoular em1 ,lovees in the past. To the extent that g anctioned vacanci hd uties exi s for suc t l8 SN,J wP tE4t2 2.023 reour d, the exDedite all i.i esDondent EmDl,over shall administ atave necessarv a n GT tia tim emolovees are ot indefinitelv retain ed on ntrarv to statutorv and dailv waoes eouitable norms. th aGA I

19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed." L2. The A ex Court in a iudoment Dorted in ( 20L71 1 Suo me Court Cases 148, in te of Puniab and rs vs h n a P and i su b-oa ras (1)(2)(3), of the said iudqment observed as under: "54 "The Full Bench of the High Cout-t, while adjudicating upon the above antroversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scale, merely for the reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The full bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:- "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sandioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. .J l9 SN,J wP 18412 2023 t lona (2) But if dailv waoers- dhoco I contractual appointees are not appointed aoa nst sanctioned posts and their seruiceg ate availed continuously, with notional bre.1 <s, bv the State Government or iE instrumet4 alities for a suffic riod i- e. 70 _ tears- such dailv waqerc. ad hoc or contractui4 ADDO ntees shall be entitled to minimum of the. reoular oav scale without anv allowancel lna re ts for such lono availa ble. and oeriod of time. an eouitabte right i,created in such cateaoru of oercons. Therg claim for reou rization. considered separately in terms- oermlssible scheme. anv, mavh ve Dtion that I, (3) In the event, a claim is made for t tinimum pay scale after more than three years and t ,o months of completion of 70 yearc of continuot: working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual emp.l ,yee shitt be entitled to arrears for a period of tht(? years and two months."

13. The iudo ent of the A x Courtr 20L (9) S rDort din n: State of Kar Crtaka and others v M,L.Kesari and others, an particula r, paras 4 to9 reads as u der: 247 b 1 t State of Karnataka v

4. The decision nadevi wa5 rend,ered on 1O- 4.2OO6 he rted in 2006 G', SCC 1). In of this Co','t held that B n process or er any right lirect their ' nor make exercise of i should not )rization, or t had been )nstitutional in ensuring appointments made without following the du, the rules relating to appointment did not cot) on the appointees and courts cannot absorption, regularization or re- engageme.t their seNice permanent, and the High Court it jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constituti) ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regtr permanent continuance unless the recruitmet done in a regular manner, in terms of the ( scheme; and that the courts must be carefL I 20 SN,J wP 18412 2023 that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the sfate or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to fu instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Couft fufther held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : to be c'larified- Thcre "53- Onc esDel:f nce mav be cases where irreoular apoointmenB (not illeoal aopointments) as exolalned in S.V. Naravanappa 17967 (7) SCR 7281, R.N. Nanjundaooa t7972 (71 SCC 4O9l and B.N. Naoaraian 17979 t4, 5O7l and referred to in para 75 above- of dulv oualified percons in dulv sanctioned vacant posb mioht have been made and the emolo have continued to ..6^ 1,6, rs or rttilhatrl htt* Car tio of orde considered on merits in the liaht of the princioles settled by this Court ii the cases abovereferred to and in the lioht of this iudament. In that context. the Union of India. the State Gove ments and instrumentalities sho ld take steDs to reoularize as a one-time measure. the services of such irreqularlv aooointed, who have worked for ten vears or more in dulv sanctioned Dosts but not under cover of orderc of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that itments a those vacant sanctioned Dosts that reauire to be tilled uo, in ca where temDorarv emolovees or dailv waqers are beinq now emploved. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. ..., "5. It is evident from the above that therc is an exception to the general principles against ' regularization' 21 SN,J YP 18412 2023 enunciated in Umadevi, if the following cct ditions are (i) The employee concerned should have wo, ked for 10 years or more in duty sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court: or tribunal. In other words, the State Governme, t or its instrumentality should have employed the ei oloyee and continued him in seruice voluntarily and cont tuously for more than ten years, (ii) The appointment of such employee sht illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointme made or continued against sandioned posts o persons appointed do not possess the prescritt qualifications, the appointments will be consit illegal. But where the person employed p<': prescribed qualifications and was workir sanctioned posts, but had been select undergoing the process of open competitive se I appointments are considered to be irregular. (iii) Umadevi a dutv uDon the concerned Government or instrumentalitv. to takg steDs to reoularize th.e seruices of those iffeoularl g aooointed employees who had serued for more thao ten vears without the benefit or Drotection of e v, nterim orderc of courts ot ls, as a one-titt l! meaSure, Umadevi, direeted that such one-time meC sure must be set in motion within six months from lle date of its decision (rendercd aa 7O,4-20O6|. tld not be 1ts are not where the C minimum ered to be sessed the g against d without rction, such

6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be ur its proper percpective. This would normally me t the decision in Umadevi, each departmer instrumentality should undertake a one-time e prepare a list of all asual, daily-wage or ad fux who have been working for more than ten ye the intervention of courts and tribunals and suh, a process verification as to whether they i against vacant posts and possess the requisite for the post and if so, regularize their services. Terstood in n that after . or each <ercise and em ployees 1rs without ?ct them to .e working tualification

7. At the end of six months from the date cl decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ac .hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Cc requently, 22 SN,J wP tt4t2 2023 o several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily-wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 70 years of continuous service as on 70.4.20O6 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of lJmadevi, are so considered. or tribunals. t is to ensure

8. The obiect behind the said direction in para Sg of Umadevi is two- fold. at those who have out in more than ten vears of continuous seruice without the protection of anv interim orders of cou sidered for Umadevi reaula ation in view of t, eir lond service. nd is to ensure that the departments/ instrumentalities do not DerDetuate the Dractice of emDlov, o Dersons on periodicallv reoularize them on the around that thev ore than a s rendered, are re the date of d, constitutional or statutoru Dtovtstons defeatino ruitment and aooointm nt. The true relatino to effect of the direction is that all oersons who have worked for more than ten vearc as on 7O.4.2OO6 (the al for lon 'ision in Umad' v vacant oosts. oossessino the reouisite oualification. re entitt idered court or tri ad-h n z. ; 23 SN,J Lry 18412 2023 fact that the em Yer has not undet Taken such exercise of reoularization. within .six mc1 ths of the decision in Umadevi or that such etg rcise was undertaken onlv in regard to a limited ,Cw. will not disentitle such emplovees, the right to bt- considered for reaularization in terms of the above r! rectians in Umadevi as a on e-time measune.

9. These appeals have been pending for mo e than four years after the decislon in Umadevi. The A. rcllant (Zila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered th ) cases of respondents of regularization within six mt tths of the decision in Umadevi or thereafter,

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has , fhe cases of respondents should be cj accordance with law. The only further directkt, be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Ziti Gadag should now undeftake. an exercis? months, a general one- time regularization ex2 out whether there are any daily wage/r" employees serving the Zila Panchayat and tf such employees (including the respondents requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umac fulfill them, their services have to be regulariz,: exercise has already been undertaken by omitting the cases of respondents 7 to 3 bct pendency of these cases, then their cases sha, considered in continuation of the said one t within three months. It is needless to say respondents do not fulfill the requirements o, Umadevi, their services need not be regult,t employees who have completed ten years s,? possess the educational qualifications presci post, at the time of their appointment, th considered for regularization in suitable lowe'r appeal is disposed of accordingly, tirected that sidered in that needs Panchayat, within six 'cise, to find sual/ad-hoc so whether I fulfill the evi. If they l. If such an ignoring or ause of the have to be ne exercise that if the Para 53 of 'sed. If the vice do not )ed for the ty may be posts. This L4. In the iudqment of the Aoex Court in l\ ihal and others v. State of Puniah reported in _ ZO13) 14 SCC 65, the Su preme Court considered th, ) case of + 24 ,4 SN,J wP tE4t2 2023 absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exctusively within the authority of the stite, utE it tne State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also refused to accept the defence that there were no sanctione oosts and so there was ifi ation for h number of oeoole like the a Doellants for decades. It held that "sanctioned Dosts do not fall from heaven" and that the tate has to create them bv a conscrous h n h rational a need. Referrino to Umadevi, it held that the apoellants before them were not arbitrarilv chosen, their initial I 25 SN,J wP tE4t2 2023 appointment was not an 'irreoular' aDDoin! ment as it had been made in accordance with th, statutorv orocedure orescribed under the Police Act. 1861, and the State cannot be heard to say that tll:v are not entitled to be absorb ed into the services o' the State on oermanent basis as, accordino t<1 jt, their ADD(' ntments were ourelv tem rarv ahd I ot aoainst anv sanctioned Dosts created bv the State. ! t was held in Umadevi cannot that the iudoment licence for exolo itation bv the Statr instrumenta l aties and neither the Goverr nment of ,ecome a a Puniab nor those oublic secto Banks ce4 r continue such a or ctice inconsistent th their ol iqation to 1 function in accordanc e with the Constitutio r.

15. The udqment of the A x Court r Ported in 2015 SCC Online SC 1797 between B,Srinir asul and others v Nellore Municioal teo.by its rDoration 1 Commi ssioner, Nello District. A hra P rdesh and E others, in particular paras 7 and 8 reads as3 rnder: (7) We find it difficult to acceDt the reas(\ ing adopted nts to seek 272 dat'?_122.4.1994. reoula rization flows from the G.O. No. OUrt. The the Hi ht of h 26 SN,J wP tt4t2 2023 rior to the issua The aooellant have been in servie of the first soondent not onlv of the said G.O. but even subseoucn t to the tssue of G.O till todav The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned c.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants.

8. In the circumstance, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly) in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' seruices be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their frve year continuous service as was laid down by this Coutt in District Collector/Chairperson & Other.s vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 480.

16. In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar reoorted (2015) 8 SCC 265, the Supreme Court held that'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permat regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure securiw of emolovment of hose oersons who had served the State Government and their ts". In that em Dlovee was workino lor 29 vears. This decision aDDroves earlier view exoressed in ln stru mental ties for more than ten v ca se M.L.Kesari extracted above. 21 SN,J wP tE4tz 2023

17. In State of Jarkhand v Kamal prasacl reported in (20141 7 SCC 223. similar view was terllen bv the Suore e Court and i was held as llows r ! "47.... In view of t,he cateooric, I findir ct on the re evant conte tious issue respondent emplovees have continued in their senTce for more than O vears continuouslv erefore. the leqal principle laid down bv this Court in Lt! tadevi case (State of Karnataka v llmadevi (2OO6) 4;;CC 7 t 2006 scc &Sl 731 at ta 53 soue oresent cases. The Division Bench of tl4.tilah Court has riohtlv held that the resryndent et7 oloyees are entitled for the relief. the same cannot L e interlered with bv t is Court." an ies

18. The Judgment of this Court dated l6.tZ.2OZz passed in W.P.No.276OZ of 2O19 whi :h pertains regularization of 35 NMRS of Sr i Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by th: Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of :1, r23 dated 1O,1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the orrl:r of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLp No.328u| of 2024.

19. The judqment of the Aoex Court in l[ rri Krishna Mandir Tru v.s te of a harashtra a nd 28 (\, SN,J wP 18412 2023 reoo d in AIR 20 2O Suoreme Court 3969 and in particular oara Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows: "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are duW-bound to exercise such oower, where the Government or a public authoritv has failed to exeidise or has wronolv ex rcised discretion confe d uoon it bv a statute, or a rule, or a oolicy 4ecision of the Government or has exercised srteh discretion mala fide. or on irrelevant consideiation.

101. In all such cases, the High Court mlst issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority."

20. The Division Bench of this Court in Judoment dated 10.06.2013 oassed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2010 and 854 of 2012 while uoholdinq the Judoment dated assed in W.P.No.A377 of 2OO7 and

08.09.2010 C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 observed as under:- "Further, it is manifest from the material on record that the services of the similarly placed persons who approached the law Courts were regularized. The appellant-Corporation also issued various office orders/circu lars dated 20.12.t989, 1r.O9.L992, 06.70.2OO7 and latest being 4.7.2OO9 for regularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that S€ction 25-T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for such a long and continuous period of time on casual bas'rs is nothing but unfair labour l 29 SN,J wP 18412 2023 practice attracting the provisions of Section ;:l Act. The learned Single Judge while relying or of the Apex Court, rightly held that the rest entitled to regularization as directed in t.r orders, as the learned single Judge consi(, aspects of the matter in detail, in the prope- which, in our considered view does interference in these appeals. " -T of the ID h€ decisions ondents are ) impugned :red all the perspective, r of warrant

21. The Division ench of this Court in itl Judo ment 19.09.2() 17 oassed in W.P.N .2721.',', ot 2017 reported an 2O18(2)ALD oaoe 282 at para tJ; and para 18 ob rved as u der:- "16. It is trite that the law declared by the S,r rreme Court is binding throughout the country under Articlr 141 of the Constltution of India. It is noteworthy that by he time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was r r ndered, the provisions of Act 2 of L994 and G.O. Ms. N( .2t2, dated 22.4.1994, were in existence. The Supreme lourt, while denouncing the practice of regularization and e lsorption of f persons, who entered service through ber < doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure pr scribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ord: 'ed for one- time a bsorption/reg u la rization of those, who t :re working for a period of not less than 10 years. I has given directions in this regard to all the State Gov€ rments and I also Union of India. The Supreme Court is prerr umed to be conscious of various State enactments such rs Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. Ir < .2L2, dated 22.4.1994, while giving directions in para tJ r.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). But st I , it has not made any exception in favour of the States , rhere State enactments banning regula rization/a bsorgrl on exist. -ttl s. No.212, date 22.4.t994, do not n ! Dra). does 5 issued bv l rnt in Uma g ermissible g' Act 2 of nP f It is. therefore. r hittle dow n thr: wid sh,n, 's case (suDra) h n 19 c n o k r r r De J, 30 SN,J wP 18412 2023 9 o.2 r e Detitioners, who of the iudoment in Uma Devi's case ( reoularizatio No.5 18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2OL7, in OA No.1442 of 2Ot4, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the rat Deti on is all wed with the direct ion to th resoonde nts to co sider reoul arisation of the se ices of the oetiti oners ora)- ve, comol ed within two months from the date of ofa coDv of this o er."

22. e Div NB n f thi dated 21.O4.2O2O oassed in I. .Nos.1 2019 and w.P.No.23O 7of20 d m 2O2O in 1of 9 reoo din 4 A a e t t 4 observed as under "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the year 2000, They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date. 4A It is not known whv e 1st res ondent h s not followed the decisio n in Uma Devi's case (suora), as K + n ( 10 }h-a Courts and Tribun rerith^r rt *ha infarvanlian rrf +h6 on 1O. 4.2OO6 and ubiect d aateiirci Va enf n t al nnccacc r-a aaa a Gii6 ltar<fc oualifications for the posts, and if so, reoularize their services. n 3l SN,J vP tE412 2023

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; 1 orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st rejecting the cases of petitioners for regrt services on one-time basis are declared as illerr and violative of Articles L4, t6 and 21 of the ( i India; the respondents are ) one-time bas:s petitaoners' services frol each of the petitioners comolete 10 vear! on dailv waqes from the initial datr:_ apoointment, But. thev shall not be entij monetarv relief. The said exercise shil within hato (2) w of the order." e'impugned respondent arization of al, arbitrary nstitution of rularize on r the date of service led to any I be done of re<:r iot of coDv from the da

23. This Court oD anes that tn the o sent case, the resDo ndents inq the reoul arizataon iled to discharoe their du request of the Detil )ner Detitioner's servrces. who j; workinq :l as Dart time sweeDer and further cc r side his re(I est to treat t e tem ra rv servt(x of the Detiti er an the last qrade oost of Dart tirr r sw eDer as reqular one for all purooses by orantino_ ast vised fr I r time to time from the date of aooointment of the etiti ner, rdance t law. I

24. Thi Court ooines that oetitioner is er title s e for r rtrt oft he 32 r', SN,J wP 18412 2023 t r n r of the observatron oft heA Court in vara us iudqments (refe to nd da ove) and e V. w Di ision Be nch of ts Couft tn the u e a e 25 a) Ta nsid ration:- The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearang on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4. c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: ix2o2o) 1 SCC (L&S) (ii) 1990(2) scc page 396 (aii) 2O2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2O2a LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) 1 scc 148 (vi) 2O1o(9) scc247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2O1s SCC Ontine SC 1797 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s 33 SNJ wP \84t2 2023 (x) (2014) 7 scc223 (xa) SLP No.32847 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (x..i) (2oo6) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this (r,urt dated

10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2010 rnd 854 of 2012 while uptoading the Judgment dated ( B.O9.201O passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C r:.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Cr urt dated L9.O9.mA7 passed in W.P.No.272t7 ot 2Oti (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Cr urt dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos,l of 2O2O ir 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23057 of 2019 (referred to an,l extracted above). g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 ot the present order. 34 o SN,J wP tut2 2023 ewrit Peti onasal owed.t heodtati neris r n d !m the Deti oner to treat the temDorary r s s o e n r s r nti tn em t f d te a s e re!eva u n ocumentsins UDDOrt of etitioner's case as n n e o of one (01) week from hed ate o receiot of coov of on en o d a r e n e a w c r s n ural u of er e o e ser Dorte eS b in 2OO6(4 SCC Pao ) a e1 the tn W.P.No.24 377 ol 2 07 dated n Devi's iudsment Dass in2 1 LD P e2 s r .A.N 78 o1 a ,n 35 SN,J wP 18412 2023

10.o .2O13. an also as r Divis on Benr: r Judqment

9.O9.20 17 ,ass W.P.No.27217 of 2OO7 reported in 20191., I)ALO paoe 242 and alsotheD rvtsron ench Judonl :nt of this Court dated 21.O4.2O2O passed in I.A,Nos,_ of 2O2O tn 1o f 2019 in W.P- No.23Os 7of2 019 ! eoorted in 20 20(4tA D oaoe 379 which had attain:d fi na !itv. withln a Deriod of ur (O4) weeks from :he date of of his o er, d receiDt of aco .! akino into { rvatio ns and t e la' con ideratio the ob bv the ADex Court in the various iud men s( referred to and extracted above), and in oarticular,_ rara No.53 of the iudqment of the Apex Courf ,n frre cA se of State of Karnataka v. and dulv mrrl rnicate the a I decrslon titione r. How r.t ere _ ;hall be no order as to co Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending n this Writ Petition, shall stand closed, , //TRUE COPY// \ r: SD/. S,I IALLIKARJUNA RAO i TSTANT REGISTRAR_ ,':=:-.- \ SECTION OFFICER ___*_ / One Fair Copy to the Hon,ble MRS JUSTICE S (For Her Lad yships Kind Perusal) I,ALLI NANDA To, 1 2 The Principal Secretarv. panchayathraj Department, -r Hyderabad, State of Teiangana. The Prl. Secretarv to Government, Finance and I,lanning Department, Tetangana Secretaiiat, uyoeraoao, silt; ;i-i&d;;, erangana secretariat, 3 The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Telenhone Bhavan Road, Saifabad, Hyderabad- The Chief Executive Offtcer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Karimnagar Drstrict. 4 5- The District Collector and Chairman, Minimum Wages Commiftee, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar.

6. 11 LRCopies 7- The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

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

9. One CC to SRI CH.GANESH, Advocate [OPUC] 10.One CC to SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT toPUCI

11.Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-I, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 1 2. Two CD Copies BSR TKS HIGH COURT DATED:2510712025 ) ) R Tr-i s o( * 2 B ;8 ?.n?F \rr -", r,:-O * ORDER WP.No.18412 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS I ^$ ;il,'