The High Court · 2025

Order

Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Rural Development, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, tearned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and planning, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned Standing Counsel for TG ZPp Mpp GppS, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

2. The petition er aooroache d the Court seeklnq Draver as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not treatrng the services of petitioner as regular one in last grade post for working from 36 long years on full time even not paying legitimate wages of Full Time Sweeper, as per appotntment order dated 09-05-1986, as unjust, unfair, totally arbitrary and vtolation of Article 14, 4 SN, J \\p 2{E75 2022 ' 1976 and wages to itution in by not ages Act, L6, 21, 39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of our Cons denying Iegitimate living wages to petition l implementing Section 13 and 15 of Minimum '/ 1948 and provisions of Equal Remuneration Act' Govt. Orders from time to time, to pay livin(l herein to petitioner and prays to direct the Respondents ne in last treat the Services of the petitioner as regular of 09-05- grade post from the date of initial appointmer t 1986 by applying the decision and principle lid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh ' s State of U.P. (2019 (1) SCC 516) and Division Bench of his Honble Court in WP No. 33936 of 2011 and Batch Casr:r dated 02- 05-2018 (2O2O (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) followed b/ decision of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in W.A No 483 o 1021 dated 05-08-2021 based on principle laid by the Hon'-'e Supreme Court in C.A. No' 7254 of 2018 Apex Court, rited 23-03- 2018 to reckon contingent services of p: itioner for computation of qualifying service to grant 'f pension' gratuity and other retirement benefits t \ releasinq consequential monetary benefits in the last grade post including periodical increments, as revised fron' ime to tlme with 1000/o compensation as per prrnciple laid b1 Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Avtar Char ( In C A No' 34L6 - 3445 of 2010 and Batch Cases datec 19-02-2019 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by applying the afores' d principles and decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court D rvision by thrs Benches under Article 141 of our Constitt 1 on Hon'ble Court in the case of petitroner and pas:' "' ' Cr l 3 a e SN, J W 21815]022 n r affidavit filed in SUDDO verm tsm oft e Dre ent writ oetition t he se e b ith he res herein m deca de contends that the reli fasor ved for in the oresent writ oeti ron. etitioner is entitled for the U E THE R CORD:- DIS CU SSION AND CONCLUSION:- 4. Learned counsel a DDea ri n ehalf of at th b e ue tn ls soua relv covered bv the o rder of this Court. dated o 10 sed in W.P.N 24377 2007 o

2(JL (1) ALD. Pao e 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.78 2of 2.J1O, dated 10.o 6.2013 a nd also order. date 19.O9.2(JL7 Dass tn W.P.No.2 72L7 ot 2OL7 reported i 20ta (2 ALD Pao e282and also the orde r dated 2t.o4.2 O2O oas !n W.P. No.23O57 of 2019 reDo ed in 2O2O(41 ALD Paqe 379.

5. Lea ned sta ndinq ounsel aooearinq on behalf of the resDondent No.4 submits that the q rreva nce of 6 SN, ] \\p,24875 2022 DE ation rasD ut-fo hin the D sent Writ Pelj :ion had not been address therefore, the oetiti oner cannot comolain inlI to he resoondents herein as )n date and ton nth a rt of s t ione inc side ln th rn va nc n sent Wit Detiti n cannc ,J beq ra nted s ra r:l f rbv the Detitioner noM e Dre in th anda us ca be is ued aoainst th€ resDonde nts etiti rer h reun directed r o out-forth the Detitio er sq rte! nce as Dut- sent Writ Petition bv wav <f a deta iled and u on forth in the ore re resentation to the respo ndents herei n a rec eiDt of the consider the id reD resen tion, the re sDo! dents would rdance to latl within a me rna rea sonab le Deri od. 6 Learned counsel a ooea rinoon behalf of ! he oetationer s not di sDutethesaid su mtsslon madel) tt he learned sta ndinq counsel ADDearinq onbehalf of ttI l resDondent No.4 7 SN. J \\p_24815 2022 7, The Aoex Cou rt in the iudqment reoorted in (2O2O) 1 SCC (L&S) in Prem Sinoh v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, at Dara 3 6 held as under: "36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30- 40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated, As they have worked in the work-charged establishment. not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the Facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration oi regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it js made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the reoular establishment and the services rendered bv them rioht from the dav thev entered the work-ch rqed establishment shall e counted as oualifvino service for Duroose of oension."

8. The Aoex Co rt in the case of Dharwad District PWD ail Wa Em tion V s U^a^-+^L- orted in 1990 2 SCC Pa e ?o R laid rln t the Sta ld not kee a ers in tem r 8 SN. J \p 24875 2022 oc se rce r lono Der od and have tc treat such Derso nsasreq ular one. 9 Para No.53 of the in the State o I 10 .04.2006 reDor h ereu nder: - ( of the iudq ment of th A kaa d oth rs Vs. Un rdevi. dated din (2006) 4 See 1se xtracted x Cou ! 1 1 a 7 a n n R1 67 c "53. One ca5esw ere trreou la a DDoant m nts) sex lained in S.V. a soect needs to be clarified.r ter mav be intments (not illeoal ! laravanapPa t 1L972 (1) ) scc soTl rlv qualified and refer dto ln Dar 15a bove, of t mioht have Dersons I dulv sancti ned v cant ost l ontinued to been made and the molov es have work tor ten vears orm ore but f tri i nterventio nofo rders of the courts or n als. zatio of the ser' f lce of su h The o u esti on of nsidered ln merits in em lovee mav have thi:; Co rt IN the the liqht oftheDrincioles cases a boverefe rred to and int he lqht of this ludqme nt. In that context, the Union < f Indi a, the their inst mentalities I state Governm ents u larize as a one-tim to I-GIIIU sh uld measure, the serv! sof ular! r aopointed, ch ir ind ulv who have worked for ten vears or fior oned posts but not under cover of rrders of the sa!! cou rts oroft ri bunals and s ould further en sure that en o fill th e requla r recruitments are unde vaca nt sa nction doo in cases wh ere temDor rv em lovees or _ lailv waoers Lrst be set in are bein q now e olov motion within six The Drocess rl this date that reou ire tr months fro fille u ) 9 SN. J \\D 2487) 2022

10. The iudoment of the Aoe Court dated 2O.L2.2O24, reoorted ln 2024 Lawsuit(SC) 1209 in Jaqqo Anita and f India n h r h r oaraoraoh Nos.12. L3. 24. 26, 27 and 28 are extracted hereunder: "12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workersr" 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. res ondents tha 13. these were not reoular oosts lacks merit, as the nature of the work Derformed bv the appellants utas perennial and fundamental to the functionino of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which efFectively replaced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional. l0 SN- J wp 24875 2022

24. The landmark judgment of the Uniterr in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corpora:l F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pe example from the private sector, illustral.i consequences of misclassifying employe circumvent providing benefits. In this Microsoft classified certain workers as inde I contractors, thereby denying them err beneFits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for tl-< Circuit determined that these workers vr fact, common-law employees and were eni the same benefits as regular employees. Tlrr noted that large Corporations have incr,) adopted the practice of hiring terr employees or independent contractors as. of avoiding payment of employee benefits, t increasing their profits. This judgment undrl the principle that the nature of tht: performed, rather than the label assigne(l worker, should determine employment stat the corresponding rights and benefi' hiohliqhts the iudiciarv's role in rer such misclassifications an ensu rt n c workers receive fai r treatment. State >n [97 tinent rg the es to case, lnde nt ployee Ninth :re, in :led to Court rsingly pora ry mea ns rereby scores to the ls and s. It ifvino

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor lntries and ensure appointments adhered to const t rtional principles, it is regrettable that its princil) es are often misinterpreted or misapplied tO ;. This legitimate claims of long serving employee judgment aimed to distinguish between ' illegal" " irreg u la r" appoirt ne n ts. 3s in It cateqoricallv held that emolov,e irreqular oDointments, who were eno red in dulv sanctioned oosts and had j;erved continuouslv for more than ten vears l rhould be considered for reoularization as ! one- tame measure. However, the laudable it .ent oF the judgment is being subverted when ins::utions rely on its dicta to ind iscriminately rel( ct the claims ol' employees, even in cases wher I their ,e l1 SN, J wp 24875 ?$22 nlzln lt f arrrinci arrln !o es wh appolntments 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, judgment's explicit overlooking the acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropria te. This sel ctave aDDlication d istorts the iudqment's soirit and ourpose, effectivelv h t v indisoensable servlces over rendered 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 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. 2f3. 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

27.7O.2OL8 are quashed; t2 SN, J wp 2487 5 -2022 r r d ll. The a ooella ts sh fits b kw ! rken ba k on dutv forthw ith and _:heir fort vith. eo ula ri sed ll n Howe e nti thev hav not 1 rices be ntitle o for the sa id oeriod and the ..i EU!19 would bec ou nted for t elr _ ,ost- retiral enefi for but'r n

11. T nt of he Co

31.O1 .2025 2025 rNScL44in"S RIPAL NI AN OTHE reo rted ln NA AR NIGA M. GHAZIAB D". in oartic la r, _ :he relevant I oar Nos.1 5to19 are extracted ereun er: t s f t A '15.rti rr tt Workm en cont in u ouslv rende red their services )ver sev ral r r a decade. Even if certaan mus er rolls were not ort2luced in full, I :h records- t _ an adverse labo UT stro tlv di avors !,aqements in -all w I l-esta lish d es it inference er's f d ire ilu r Em f h s c t r n lan en ce. I dail -w e r et umstan es wh r in munlcl al r nature. Morall n cannot be dismis ed su marilv as disoe sa ble, Darticularlv in the absence of a oenu I re contractor a s a fter v II work l'l l3 SN, J ttp 21875 JO22 aqreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following pa ragraphs: "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 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 cbserved 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, partlcularly 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 lo 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: r f a Misuse of "TemDorary" Labels: Emolovees n and inteqral to the functioninq of an institution are often labelled as "temporarv" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror recurrtn sentia I l4 SN, J *p 24815]022 e I !o b Such req lar es. (rs of i D rform f d a s are ntitl m las di nt e identical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary 3 nployees are frequently dismissed without cause or " )tice, as seen in tf,e piesent case. This practice ur lermines the principles of natural justice and subjecr workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardles:; oF the quality of their service. ' Lzrr k of Career or du ration Temporary emPloYee:; often find P rog ressio n : excluded from opporturr:ies for skill themselves development, promotions, or incremerl al pay raises' They remain stagnant in their rok:r , creating a systemic disparity between them an(l their regular counterparts, despite their contri I ltions being equally sig nifica nt. . Using Outsourcrng as a Shiel(l Institutions increasiigly resort to outsourcing role; performed by temporary employees, effectively rep I rcing one set of exploited workers with another' Tlri; practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a OetiOeiate effort to bypass the oblli ation to offer regular emPloYment- . Denial of Basic Rights and Benef t i: Temporary employees are often denied fundanl:ntal benefits such as pension, provident fund, hea th insurance, and paid teave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack cf social security ;ubjects them and their families to undue hardship especially in cases of illness, retirement, c'l unforeseen circu msta nces. "

16. The High Court did acknowledge l,t e Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations Sonsequently' it ordered re-engagement on daily wage s with some € l5 SN, J wp 24875 2022 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, 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 en aqed in Disputes Act, t947, and that nn tb e esse nt a Deren nI releoa ted to Deroetual uncertaintv. while con cern s and co oliance with of mun ici oa I recru Itment rules merit consideration , such co n cern s do not a bsolve theEm olover o statutorv obliqa ion s eouitab le entitlemen Indee d. b u rea ucratic limitations cannot trum o the leq mate riqht s of workm en who have served contin uou slv in de facto requl a r roles for an exte nded oeriod. I duti es. these workers b udoet n eqa te a D dne

18. The im extent thevconfin ethe A DDEI nt Wo k en t dailv -waoe d orde r of the Hioh Cou rt- toth e u re enoaoement without con inuitv or t r 16 sN,.l w[r_24875 2022 mea ni nqfu I back waoes. I he bv seta: de with the followinq directions: , I. The discontinuation of the Appellar services, effected without compliance vt and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial 1947, is declared illegal. All communications term inating their quashed. In consequence, the APPeI ; shall be treated as continuing in sert date of their termination, for all purptl seniority and continuity in service. I Workmen's :h Section 6E )isputes Act, orders or ;ervices are nt Workmen ice from the ;es, including II. The Respondent EmPloYer shall Appellant Workmen in their respect posts akin to the duties they previou: within four weeks from the date of ' Their ntire nu I actu entia bene 'einstate the i/e posts (or ; y performed) .l is judgment. nce fron r the date of :nt) shall be :e and all :nl ritv f sert n 'I i!a f s s ch r ons ifa Res III. Considering the length of service the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o of tf e back wages from the date of their discontinuat ( n until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent t mployer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three' months from the date of their reinstatement. v.T Em lo er nd transDarent initiate a fair req u la nzrnotheA ooel I a nt Workm months from the date of reinsta consi derin q the fact that thev ha Derennial munrcl oal duties akin t posts, In requ lar EMolover shall not imoose ed riteria ret act veI directed to - process for g n within six I ement, dulv g : oerformed l, Oermanent ij:ation, the l rcational or aoD! ed to the simil rlv situated re urre ments were nt Workmen A asses sl nq ced f e t'7 r m SN, J w_24875 2022 ees in a esf r ioned v or are reouired. the Resoondent Emolove shall x dit to ensure these lonqtime emDlovees are not ln defini lv retained on dailv waoes co trarv to statutorv and equitable norms. ts ra e n

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. A exC n ud m n din 2 1 Suoreme Court Cases 148. State of Puniab a nd others vs Jaoiit Sinoh and others at Paras 54 and (Ll(2t(3 of the said iud qment observed s under: t ) s su b-oara s "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy 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 ludgment are extracted hereunder:- "(1) A datly waqer, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entttled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2) But if atlv waoers. ad hoc or contractual aooointees are not aooointed aoainst reoular sanctioned oosts and their services are availed l8 SN, J rrp 21875 2022 i1 rs. su n able rioht ted in uch ca -rv the State '( r a sufficient i v waoers, ad lon oeriod i.e. for 70 ! e entitled to hoc or con tractual ADDO intees sha ll ale witho t anv mtnlmum of the reoular Dav e assumDtion t! at work of allo wances on r ,m s l otv of Dersons. heir claim for requlariza tion, if anv. mav have to 1e considered seDa ratelv i.n term of leo llv oer (3) In the event, a claim is made for mt; 't1L! m pay scale after more than three years and I to months of completion of 10 years of continuous t crking, a daily wags7, 66 hoc or contractual emploYee s )' ll be entitled to ariLars for a period of three years and t'"'' months"' iudq ent of the A xCo urt re ort d in 2o1O(9) between: State of Ka rnata ka ,r 1d Others v tle sc heme. ,s5 , (

13. T scc 247 KesarLand ot ers, in Darticular, Daras 4lo9r M u nder: The ectslon ln State of Karnataka v |l-mO ( ( v! w ats rcndercd on 10.4.2006 (reDorted in 2006 (4) SCC 1) It1 t hat case a nch of this Court hetd that aPt. )intments made Constitution without fotlowing the due process or the r tles re lating to appointment did not confer any right on th - appoin tees and courts cannot direct their absorption, reqt ttrizatton or re- a nd the High engagement nor make their service perman''t t, 226 of the Court in exercise of iurisdiction under Ar: :le Constitution shoutd not ordinarily issue directtt't s for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unle; th€' recruitment hid been done in a regular manner, '' terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts t ) tst be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly 'v th the economic arrangdment of its affairs by the State or it:' nstru menta lities, nor lind themselves to be instruments to factl t tte the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. his Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casuat or 'z daily-wage emptoyee does not have a legal right to be nade permanent uniess he had been appointed in terms of the ' levant rules or in l9 SN, J w9 2481 5_2022 adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, This Cou r-t however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : 7 e a Nara scR 72 "53. One asoect needs to be clarified. There mav be cases where irreoular aooointments (not illeoal lained in S. R.N. Nan 7967 SCC 4O9l and B.N. Nagaraian 17979 (41 SCC 5O7l and referred to in para 75 above, of dulv oualified persons in dulv sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and theem D lovees have continued to rs or more ork for ten intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The ouestion of reoularization of the seruices of <,,ch em lo e trt ha errncidaratl an merits in the lioht of the orincioles settled bv this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the lioht of this iudqment. In that context. the Union of the State Governments and ma w havc ifhatrf tw, n t. m talities should take st e-ti, e measure the services of u sanctioned apDointed, who have worked for ten vears or mone n dul orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that reoular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts filletl ttthara osts but no ranrtira aa<.a< t tn t m lo ees or dail now employed. The process must De set in motioa ithin six months from this date. .... "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tnbunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appotntments are not made or 20 SN. J \\'p 24It75 2022 continued against Sanctioned posts or wher ) the persons appointed di not possess the prescribed minimL'tt qualifications' the appointments will be considered to be illegt't But where the person emploYed possessed the prescribed qL)lifications and 'was working against sanctioned posts, but het been selected without uniergoing the process of open comF( titive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregult t u i l ,r uDon n slx Go 'umadevi, sts a dutv emo lovees that such one-tim measu U ment o-n t rumen litv. t o had served for more I lle concerned teDs to t I s e rlv aooointed an ten vears orD rotection of an v,n ?rlm orde of or tribuna ls, as a one-time m eas !re. Umadevi. m ,st be set in nths m the ate ,f its decision motion wt ( rendered on 7O.4.2OO61. 6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be ' lderstood in its proper perspective, This would normally mea' that after the 'Aeiisioi each department or ea( I instrumentality shoutd undertake a one-time exercise and pr't )are a list of all casual, daily'wage or ad hoc employees who ha rc been workinq for more than ien years without the interventt 'n of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process / tincation as to whether they are working against vacant post; and possess the requisite quatification for the post and if sc, regularize their services. 7. At the end of six months from the dat' of dectston in lJmadevi, cases of several daity-wage/ad -hoc, r asual employees were stitt pending before Courts, Consa ttently, several departments and instrumentalities did not co'' mence fhe one- time regutarization process. On the otlt' r hand, some Governient departments or instru mentalitt'' undertook the one-time exercise excluding several '- rtployees from consideration either on the ground that their ( ) ;es were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such L:''cumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considere) tn terms of Para 53 of the decision in l.)madevi, will not losc their riqht to be considered for regularization, merely beca L;e the one-time exercise was completed without considerin'r their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in pt a 53 of Untadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should t- )nsider all daily- wage/adhoc/those employees who had pu rn 7O years of 2t SN. J wP 24a7 5 2022 continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of cou rts 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 Umadevi, are so considered.

8. The obiect behind the said direction in Dara 53 of fold. First is to ensure at those who Umadevi is of continuous nterim orders of cou ut ,n mo t the ro j 'heir I ate of decision in Um re ularization in cecond is to ensure "h2l strumentalities "ha ersons on dailv-wao e/ad- OD Dtactice of em Dlo r lon n them on the oround that thevh ave served for reoular, more than ten vears. therebv defeatino the constitutional ot statutorv Drovlstons relatin to recruitment and eriod. d ntment. rsons w effect of the direction is 'ked for more than ten

70.4.2O06 (the da of decision in Umadevi w,thou? thp- t, interim order of an ssessrn uts, entitled to be considered for reqularization. The fact that the emo ver has not undertaken h exercise of within Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken onlv in reoard to a limited few. will no disentitle such emolovees the rioht to be considered for reqularization IXm n t d, a rections in Umadevi as a on s of the measute. 9, These appeals have been pending for more than four yea rs after the decision in Umadevi. The Apoellant (Zila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or thereafter.

70. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with 22 SN, J wp 2487 5 -2022 law. The onty fufther direction that needs be git tn' in view of ii tnat the Zila Panchayat, Gada'7 should now iiui"ii, ;;;;irk" an exercise within six months, a ger < ral one- time reoularization exercise, to find out whether ther'z are any dailY *li"/ritiiiit"i-'hoc emplovees serving the Zila Pa rchavat and if ,i=ilh"thu, ,uch employees (including the resg ndents) fulfill Ii" ,iiriru."nts mentioned ii para 5i ot U.madet i', If they fulfill LnLi,'tn"i, services have to be regularized' If stt'h an exercise ii utr"uav been undeftaken by ignoring o.r omtl in.g the cases oi-rirponi"ntt 1 to 3 because of the pendency tf these cases' cases shatt have to be considered in tontinuation of i"i-[iii, lnl saia one time exercise within three months' 'l is needless to iuv-tnii ir the respondents do not fulfitt the rtquirements of iiru is of tJmadevi, their seruices need not be regularised' If tie- imploYees who have completed ten ye?rs. :ervice do not iotsret{ tn'" educational qualifications prescribed i )r the post' at ti*" of their appointment, they may be :onsidered for iii"Eliuri"n ii suitlbte lower posts' This appea is disposed of accordinglY. u m urt n Nihal Sinqh 14. In h n(2,Jt13) 14 SCC and ot ers v. State of Pun ab reDo 65, the Supreme Court considered the case (l' absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the ! tate' whose wages were paid by Banks at whose di ;posal their services were made available. It held that l:l te mere fact that wages were paad by the Bank did no render the appellants 'employees' of those Bank:; since the appointment was made by the State anrl disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that thr: creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre: is a matter 23 SN, J \vp 24815J022 exclusively within the authority of the State, but if the 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 e t e efence,that th rew ren n and so there was iustifica ion for the State to utilise se rvices of laroe n um her of le like the a DDellants for decades. It held that "sanctioned posts do not fall from hea ven and that the State has to create them bv a eo D n of some rational ass m n of need Referrino to Umadevi, it held that the aDDellants before them were nol arbitrarilv chosen, their initial appointment was not an 'irreqular' appointment as it had been made in accordance with the statutorv orocedure nrcscriherl rrndcr tha Polirc l r.t 1 R6 1 h o qtrfa cannot be heard to sav that thev are not entitled to be absorbed into the services of the State on oermanent basis as, accordino to it, their aopointments were ourely temoorarv and not aoainst anv sanctioned oosts created bv the State. the ud m nt in Um ex lo itatio n h Sta n SN. J wp_24875 2022 its i nstr menta lities and either the Go'r:rn ment of Pun iab n r thos e oublic sect r Ban s can col I tn e sucha rncon srs the ro blioation t,2 function in accorda nce with the Con stitution. oex Cou rt

15. The iudq ment of the scc online Sc t797between B.S nivas lu ; nd others v al Cor orati n ReD.bv t t, C,o mmi ssto n e Nel lore Nellore District, And hra Pra esh a d oth rs, - n particular oo :ed in 2O 15 untcrD r_ Daras TandB reads s und er: ,l se( tdo ted bv the (7) We find it ifficult reoulariza tion Hioh Cou rt. The riaht of the aDDellants flows from he G.O. No.212 dated 22. 4.1994 The a Dellant t c tlv orior to the have been in servlce f the -'.o the issue,o[ tssua nce ot the said G.O but even subse uenl y be 19 a statutorY G.O. tilt today. The respondent Municipalit body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). I nspt ' of the above for ttmost 20 years mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite llanr: and continued without regularising the service of the appe to extract work from the appellants. res, In the circumstances, refusing the benef: of the above 8. mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appelt) tts approached the Tribunat belatedly, in our opinion, is not itstified' In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying i he order under appeal by directing that the appellants' service! be.regularised wih effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous service as was laid down by this ( )urt in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh I Ors 2009 (8) SCC 480,

16. In Am arkant Rai vState of Bihar scc 265, the Su Dreme court held that ''r 1e obiective DO ed f2015 )8 r_ 25 SN. J r\? 21875 2022 behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure securatv of emplovment of those Dersons r^lho had served the State Government and their instrumentalities for more than ten vears". In that case, emDlovee was workino Jor 29 vears. This decision aDDroves earlier view exoressed in M .K.L esart e racted above. 17, In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasad reported in (2014) 7 SCC 223, similar view was taken bv the Supreme Court ard it warheld as follows : "47,.,. In view of the cateqorical findins of fact on the r e I e v a n t co n te n t i o u s i ss u eih Lt t h eJe spgo deat e m p I o v e e s have continued in their service for more than 70 vears continuously therefore, the leoal orinciole laid down by this Court in Umadevi case (State of Karnataka v Umadevi [&s 73 at ara 53 s ua rel 2006 4SCC7 applies to the Dresent cases. The Division Bench of the Hiqh Court has riqhtlv held that the resDondent emplovees are entitled for the relief, the same cannot be interfered with bv this Court." 2006

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 26 SN, J wp 248'7 5 2022 Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda Dis lrict' which had been upheld by the Division Bench rrf this Court in W.A.No.937 ol 20.23 dated 1O'1O'20 13 and also confirmed by the order of Apex (:ourt dated 09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 ot 2024' The iudo ent of the ADex court in {ari Kris hna 19. Ma dir Trust V. State of Mah arash ra and ot! ers reoorted in AIR 2O2O UDreme Cou rt 3969 and lnD 3 rticular Para No .1OO and 1O1 heldasfollows: "100. The High Courts exercising their jur sdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, nct only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or irt the nature of e xercise such -b mandamus, 'rlic authoriw rlv exercised ,1 r, or a rule, or I nas exercised g n irrelevant nfer du f il f t n s consi d erati on, 101. In all such cases, the High Court mu:; issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion confeired upon the Government or a publi(: authority"'

20. The Divis n f this r its Judq ent .Nos.78 2o! 2O1O and 854 dated 10.o6 2o13 oassed in W. of 2O12 while uoholdinq the Ju doment dat :d o8.09.2010 27 SN, J wp 24E15 2022 W.P.No.24377 2 o 2 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/circulars dated 20.12.79A9, 11.09.1992. 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for regularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 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 basis is nothing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of Section 25-T 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 Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment dated L9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.lto.272L7 of 2ol7 reoorted in 2O18(2)ALD Daqe 282 at Dara 16 and Dara 18 observed as under:- " 16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court rs 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.L994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by grving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time a bsorptio n/regu la rization of those, who were working ior 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. *->4 28 u p-24815 SN, J -2022 The Sup reme Court is presumed to be conscious enactme nts such as Act 2 of 1994 and executiv€ G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, while givir Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's ca still, it has not made any exception in favour of tl State enactments banning regu la rization/a b Man B ini' u m 53 lo er the traiectorv oft e direction s m P therefore, nof Dermi c,ase (su ra). It ts, res DOndents to ta ke shelter under Act 2 of Ms. No.21 2. da ted 22.4. L9 94. to denv re, who have. ad mitted lv, the oeti rone d r N e vt s ase ( suo ra ). : ' various State rrders such as rr directions in ; : (supra). But .r : States where s )rption exist. ! o.212, dated j tth and the ! r), does not S tued bY the aUma Devi's S sible for the - 994 and G.O. J rlarization to _ satisfied the tment in uma s

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, r in OA No. 1442 of 2014, on the file of the Trib and the writ Detition is all owed with t e( f l; ted 27.6.2017 , L 1al is set aside L rection to the ! re services of ! rcies of Work tetr satasfvino the criteria I aid downinP ara No .53 of th : iudoment in mu! be completed t of a coov of within two mon ths from the d this order. " (suo ra ). Thisor teofr ecer aDe 's ca u i I v n n h n t a r L

22. The Division Ben hof c m dated 21.O4.2020 oassed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2Ol , tsJ udoment 2019 O57 ot 2Ol9re oo ed in 2O)\t(41 ALD Daoe and W.P.No. 23 379 at Daras 45 ,4Sando ara 50 observed a!i under:- "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have leen working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in alm';t (30) years of service b-y now. TheY have been given minimun time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuousl'/ working without any Court orders in their Favour from 1990 till 5 rte' 4a. rtisn followed the decisi n in Uma Devi's ce se he 1st re so< ndent has not suora), as t know whv 29 SN, J wp]4875 2022 nn.ri a\raF-ica ^f ^ re explained an M.L. Kesari's case (suDra) and undertaken a rrr:na ^ria-iirrr6 emplovees who had worked for more than ten (10) vears without the intervention of the Courts and Tribunals as on 1O.4.2OO5 and subiect them o a Drocess verafication as to whether thev are work no aoainst vacant Dosts and na!<<acc ro.r r r i<ita arralifirati reoularize their services. -6 d if s .rf d:ilrr a liei 6^G+c h

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 2l of the Constitution of India; the resDondents are directed to reqularize on one-time basis petitioners' services from the date each of the petitioners rarnnlpta 'l O waar.< af carrrira nn elailrr rrr:rra< fr.nrn tha initial dates of the;r appointment. But, they shall not be entitled to aly mon€tarv relief, The said exercise shall be done within two (2) weeks from the date of receiDt of cooY of the order."

23. This Court opines that in the Dresent case, the resDondents failed to di sch arqe their duw in examaninq the request of the petitioner for reqularazation of petitioner's services, who is workinq as full time sweeDer f th r to consider his re uest ora r service of the Detit oner in the last orade Dost of full time sweener as I eou ar one fo r ll ourooses bv oran INo last t qrade pav with periodical increment revised from time to time from the date of aoooi Dtment of the Detitioner, in accordance to law. 30 SN, J \yp 24E15-2022

24. ThisCo rto ines that Detitioner is _ entitled for lief a co sideration of oetiti ner's case Draved forin !on in uiew oT the orant of he r heo sent Writ P of the Aoex Cou rt in variout: iudq ments observations (r rred to ande Division Be nch xtracted above) and the view of the of this Court in the .ludome n t ; referred to and extra dab e.

25. Ta inq into cons derati n:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances {) ' the case' b) The submissions made by the learr ned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and lellned standing counset appearing on behalf of the responde:r rt Nos'4 & 5' c) The observations of the Apex Court ir the various judgments (referred to and extracted abc'' e) and again enlisted below: (2o2o) l SCC (L&S) i) (ia) 1990(2) SCC Pase 396 (aii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 Law Suit(SC) 1209 (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 2O1o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC L797 31 SN, J wp:24E75 2022 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 265 (x) (2014) 7 scc223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (20O6) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 202O(a)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 ol 2O1O and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dated O8.O9.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OOB (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Eench order of this Court dated L9.O9.2017 passed in W.P.No.272L7 ol 2O17 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2!.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2Ol9 and W.P.No.23057 of 2OL9 (referred to and extracted above). g) In the light of dascussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order. The Writ Petition is allowed, the oetitioner is directed to out-forth the claim of the Detitioner for 32 SN.I s p 24875,2022 reoula rizationof Detitioner's servl ces , and al of the oetitioner in the! ast orad ! o the claim tioner to treat the temDorarv selt,ices of the of Swee D(i as reqular bv orantino Iast ora e av with one for all ouroos es DEriodical increm ents revtsed from timet ot ! ne from the ition e r e o me t .l he relevant D ts in SUDDort of t etiti n, h r el t a: out-forth tn Detit oner's cas withinaDe riod of o e(O 1)w ek r der and the o the I r hes ame tn I n e DO w tn nts sha lle xamane and con si d it with ri nci resof natural iustice bv orovidino an ooportunitv of oersol al hearino to as db the u r me reoo rted in 2OO6 (ZI SCC Paqe1, Court in Uma Devi' cas r n ter o h u s o8.O 9.2 10 DOrt confirm d inW .A.No.78 in W.P. No.2 [ 2OO7 dated 77 d in 2O11 (1) ALD ,P ac :234 a nd as t2010 dated 1cr.06.2 o13, o l_l a a nB nch J d m nto h ; Court dated assed anW .P.No.2 7217 ot 20 7reDorted in h

19.O9.20 L70 20 8(2)AL D oaqe 2A2 and also the Eti rrisio Be 0 33 SN, J wp 24875-2022 Judoment of this Co urt dated 2L.O4.2O2O oassed in f.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2O 19 in W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 reoorted in 2O2O(4)ALD oaqe 379 which had attained fin=lilrr uril hin eriod of four ( o4\ weeks fr m iha drfa of receiDt of a coov of this order, dulv takinq into tions and the law laid d w the Apex Court in the various iudoments (referred to and extracted above). and in o rticular, Dara No.53 of the ud ment of the A ex Cou h v ma Devi and dul comm ntca h cision to h n r w order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendinq in this lVrit Petition, shall stand closed. / sd/-s. MALLIKARJUNARAO SISTANT REGIST /TTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFTCER To, One fair copy to the HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLT NANDA 1Fo, Her Ladyship's Kind Perusal) ---' 1 2 3 4 5 11 L.R. CoPies. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia' Ministry of Law' Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library' High Court Buildings, HYderabad The Principal Secretary, Panchayathrai and Rural Employment Department' si"i" iri iSrinsuna . T angana Secretariat' Hvderabad' The Principal Secretary, Flnance and Planning Department' State of i!"r;s;il S.retaria[, HYderabad'

6. The District Collector, (Panchayat) and Chairman Minin L m Wages " C;;itH-"nd oiiiri'ct Setection committee, Mkarabac )istrict' T.TheChiefExecutiveofficer'ZillaPrlaParishad'VikaraladDistrict. 8. The Mandal Parishad Development fficer, Daroor Mar)( al' Vikarabad District.

9. One CC to SRl. CH. GANESH, Advocate IOPUCI l0.TwoCcStoGPFoRPANCHAYATRAJRURALDEVlighCourtforthe State of Telangana. [OUT] 11'TwoccstoGPFoRFINANCEANDPLANNING,HigII}ourtfortheStateof Telangana at HYderabad. [OUTI

12. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the St rte of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

13. ONECCTO SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, SC FOR TC .PPMPPGPPS IoPUCI '14.Two CD Copies DAN PMK '(-v HIGH COURT DATED:1810712025 (;C TODAY iE Sl4 {{-- c '( N \<\ 1 7\" 2...r)jl .' '.:,t -i, -),,'. 1'' ORDER WP.No.24875 ot 2022 L) 4 0E[ 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS -kpla , C\" 1i- - Yr^^,, .-r\\2\'