The High Court · 2025

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, learned 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 Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, Iearned Standing Counsel for ZPPS AND MPP AND GPPS, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

2. The petitioner aoproached the Court seeking oraver 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 treating the services of petitioner as regular one in last grade post for working from 35 long years on full time even not paying legitimate wages of Full Time Sweeper, as per appointment order dated OL/051L987, as unjust, unfair, totally arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 16,21,39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of our Constitution in denying 4 SN' J w_24924J022 legitimate living wages to petitioner by not implementing SJ.tion 13 and 15 of Minimum Wages Act' 1948 and provisions of Equal Remuneration Act' 1976 and Govt' Orders fromtimetotime,topaylivingwagestopetitionerandprays to direct the Respondents herein to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in last grade post from the date of initial appointment of otlosltgST by applying the decision and principle laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PremSinghVSStateofU.P.(2019(1)ScC516)andDivision Bench of this Hon'ble Court in WP No' 33936 of 2011 and Batch Cases dated O2lO5l2O1B (2020 (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) followed by decision of the Hon'ble High Court of A'P' in W.A.No. 483 of 2OZ:- dated 05-08-2021 based on principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C'A' No' l2S4 of 20lB Apex Court, daled 23/0312018 to reckon contingent services of petitioner for computation of qualifying service to grant of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits by releasing consequential monetary benefits in the last grade post including periodical increments' as revised from time to time Withloopercentcompensat|onasperprinciplelaidbyApex Court in the case of Union of India Vs' Avtar Chand in C'A'No' 3476 - 3445 of 2010 and Batch Cases dated 19-02-2019 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by applying the afoiesaid principles and decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Division Benches under Article 141 of our Constitution by this Hon'ble Court in the case of petitioner and pass""" ed coun se D 3 L r f o n v h lf of t e 5 SN, J wp 24924_2022 affidav filed in su Dort of the pertainino in particular, to the services rendered by petitioner with the resoondents herein for more than a decade contends that the petitioner is entitted for the resent writ relief as praved for in the present writ oetition. PERUSED THE RECORD:- DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:. 4. Learned counsel appearino on behalf of the petitioner submits that the subject issue in the present case is squarely covered bv the order of this court, dated o8.09.2o10 passed in w.P.No.24377 of 2oo7 reported in 2O11(1) ALD, Paqe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.7g2 of 2o1o- dated 1o.o6.2o13 and also order, dated 19.o9.2o17 passed in W.P.No.27217 of 2017 reported in 2O18 (2) ALp Paqe 282 and also the order, dated 21.04.2O2O passed in W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 reoorted in 2O2O(4r ALD paqe 379. responde

5. Learned standing counsel aooearing on behalf of the No.4 submits that the qrieva of the petitioner as out-forth in the present writ petition had not been addressed to the respondents herein as on date and /" f 6 SN, J wp_24924 2022 therefore, the petitioner cannot complain inaction on the oart of resoondents herein in considerinq the qrievance of the oetitioner and hence, the relief as praved for by the oetitioner in the present Wit petition cannot be granted and no Mandamus can be issued aqainst the respondents hereunder as souoht for and the oetitioner may be directed to put-forth the petitioner's qrievance as put- forth in the present Writ Petition by wav of a detailed representation to the resoondents herein and upon receipt of the said reoresentation, the resoondents would consider the same in accordance to law, within a reasonable period.

6. Learned counsel apoearino on behalf of the oetitioner does not disoute the said submission made bv the tearned standinq counsel apoearinq on behalf of the resoondent No.4

7. The Apex Court in the iudqment reported in (2O20) 1 SCC (L&S) in Prem Sinqh v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, at oara 36 held as under: -,i ) 7 SN, J wp_24924_2022 "36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30- +O 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 of regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired B oersons as reoular one.

9. ( ( SN, J wp_24924 2022 n

10. 8 T] \ \ ) 9 SN. J wp_24924_2022 " 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 othe6 personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. The claim bv the respondents that 13. these were not reoular posts lacks merit' as the nature of the work oerformed by the aopellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning 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.

24. The landmark jr.idgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d LLBT (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 classified 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 / IO SN, J wp_24924_2022 the same benefits as regular em ployees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasi ngly adopted the practice of hiring tem porary employees or ind ependent contractors as a means of avoiding paym ent of employee benefits , thereby increasing their profits. This jud gment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the Iabel assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional prin ciples, it is regrettabte that its principles are often misinterpreted or m isapplied to deny legitimate ctaims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" "irregular" appointments. I NS time measure. However the laudable intent of the judgment is bein g subverted when institutio rely on its dicta to indiscriminatel y reject the claims of emp loyees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merel,f 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 te mporary employees, overlo_oking explicit acknowledgment of cases where regul arization is appropriate. ment's \ t SN, J wp_24924_2022 rendered indispensable services over decades.

27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers bn a temporary basis for extended peiiods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization,s functioning, not only contravenes internationat labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines emptoyee morale. By ensuring fair emptoyment 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. 28. 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 ailowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated

27.t0.2018 are quashed; ! ii. The appellants shalt be taken be entitled to continuitv of servicej I / H t2 SN, J wp_21924_2022 would be cou retiral benefits." for their oost-

11. The Judqment of the ADex Court dated 31.O1.2O25 reoOrtcd iN 2O25 INSC 144 iN TISHRIPAL AND ANOTHER V. NAGAR NIGAM. GI{AZIABAD". iN OATtiCUIAT, thc TCICVANT para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder: anifest that furnish such "15. rtis Aooellant Workmen continuouslv rendered their services over several vears, sometimes sDannino more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not oroclucecl in full, rds- the Em over's failure desoite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-established labour iurispruclence. Inctian labour taw stronolv ctisfavors oeroetual daitv-wage or contractual enoaqements in circumstances where the work is permanent in who fulfil nature. Mor llv and leoallv, wor onooinq municipal reouirempnts year after vear cannqt be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularlv in the absence of a qentJlne contractor 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 parag raphs: ) l3 SN, J wP_24924_2022 "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, 3s exemplified in this case' reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security' In th9 .private ,uttor, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious Lmployment arrangements' ori"n characterized by lack of benefits, job security' and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standardt. Co,"inment institutions' entrusted wiin upnolding the principles of fairness and justice' bear an even greater responsibility to .avoid such exploitative eniptoyment practices' When public 'engage in misuse of temporary sector entities -,ittors the detrimental trends contracts, it not oniy observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedentlnat can erode public trust in governmental oPerations' Zi.'ft is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions' often face multifaceted forms of exploitation'. while the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may havebeentoaddressshort.termorseasonalneeds, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 a|i Online Sa Z{Z.O evade long-term obligations owed to emplciyees' These practices manifest in several waYS: ,t identical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice' as seen f ( 14 SN, J wp_24924_2022 in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects worters to a state of constant insecurity, regardiess of the quarity or duration of their service. . Lack of career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excruded from opportunities for skiil development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, lreating a systemic disparity between them and their regurar counterparts, despite their contributions rrting equally significant. ' using outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacinf one set of exploited workers with another. r'nis p.ictice not only perpetuates exproitation but arso demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the oorigation to offer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamentar benefits such as pension, provident fund, hearth insuiance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This rack of sociar security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, edpeiialfy in cases of illness, retirement, oi unforeseen circumstances.,,

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer,s inability to justify these abrupt terminations. consequenily, it ordered re-engagement on dairy wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettabry, this onry perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant workmen were left in a marginarty improved yet stiil uncertain status. while the High court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventuar regutarization, it faired to afford them continuity of service or meaningfur back wages ) l5 SN. J wp_24924_2022 the degree of statutory violation commensurate with evident on record. !7. 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, L947, and that they were enqaqed in followinq directions: I. The discontinuation of the Appeilant workmen,s services, effected without compliance with section 6E and section 6N of the U.p. Industrial Disputes Act, L947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the \ c a l6 SN, J w_24924 2022 date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. statutorv and eouitable norms. r t' t7 SN, J w_24924_2022

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. (1)(2)(3), of the said judqment observed as under: "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 judgment are extracted hereunder:- "(1) A daily wager, 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, slyall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2r But if daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual continuouslv with notional breaks. by the State long period i.e. for 7O years. such daily wagers. ad hoc or contractual appointees shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay sc?le without anv allowances on the assumption that work of perennial nature is available and having worked for such lonq period of time an eauitable right is created in such cateaory of persons. Their claim for r( l8 SN, J wp_24924_2022 (3) In the event' a craim is made for minimum pay scare after more tnfu three Virir' ura two months of completion of 1o years oi ,l'iin wase. ad hoc oi contractrut ;;;j:l,ou?r{;[y:n;rir,!i ,rI arrears for a period of three yiu'li uno two months.,,

13. under: {, _. v l9 SN. J wp_24924_2022 and referred to in para 75 above. of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant oosts might have been made and the emolovees have continued to work for ten vears or more but without the interuention of orders of the courB or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of mav have to be such emolo nsidered on merits in Che lioht of the priicioles settled bv this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this iudoment, In Chat context, the lrnion of India. the State c' vernmenfs and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure. the services of such inegularlv appointed. who have worked for ten vears or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of e courts or of tribunals and should further en re that reoular telcruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned oosts that reouire to be filled up. in cases where temporarv employees or daily wagerc are beino now emploved. The orocess must be set in motion within 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 70 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal, 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 hot be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal, But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. 20 SN, J \tp_24924]022 (iiil Umadevi casb a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentalitv. to take steos to the seruices of those irreoularlv aDDointed reoular emolo es who had served for without the benefit or orotection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. llmadevi. directed that such one- measute must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 7O.4.2O06), than te

6. The term 'one-time measure! has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the interuentian of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instru mentalities 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 lJmadevi, 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 llmadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily- wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in jO years of continuous service as on 70.4.2006 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 lJmadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded 2t SN, J wp]4924_2022 only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of lJmadevi, are so considered. /ad- measure.

9. These appeals have been pending'for more than four years after the decision in tJmadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regula-rization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or thereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High court has directed that the cases of respondents shoutd be considered in accordance with taw. The oniy further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zita Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six monthq a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wige/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and il. so-whether such employetes (inctuding the respondents) fulf!!! the requirements mentioned in para 53 of t|madevi. If they fulfill (- ( 22 SN, J \\tp_24924_2022 them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been unleftaken by ijnoring o, oriiiing the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because'orlne pinaeniy'i-r'tn"r" cases, then their casbs shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. ti-is neeabss fo sav that if the respondents do not futfirt in" ;iqlir"iii;;; Para 53 of umadevi, their services need not be iegutarised. If the employees wh9 have compreted ten years sirvice do not possess the educational quatifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may ii ionsiaered for regularization in suitable lower posts.-This'appeat-is disposed of accordingly.

14. 65, the supreme court considered the case of absorption of special porice officers appointed by the state, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposar their services were made available. rt 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. rt held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter excrusivery 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 contractuar relationship, its action is arbitrary. @ _ SN, J wp_24924_2022 z-t TI bv the State. ft was held that the iudqment in Umadevi accordance with the Constitution. 24 a SN, J wp_24924_2022

15. (7) G.O. till today. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the responden ts kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants. 8. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.o. on the ground that the appellants approached the Trib'unal belatedly, in our opinion, is' not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants, se'rviies be regularised with effect from the date of thei'r completing their Five yea, continuous service as was taid down by this- court in District c_ollector/chairperson & others vs. M.L. singh & ors. 2009 (s) SCC 480.

16. held that .The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to perrnit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not iflegar, and to ensure security of ( ./.r 25 SN, J w 24924]022 employment of those oersons who had served the State Government and their instrumentalities for more than ten vears". In that case, emplovee was workino for 29 vears. This decision aooroves earlier view expressed in M.L.Kesari extracted above. 17, In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasad reported in (2O14) 7 SCC 223. similar view was taken bv the Supreme Court and it was held as follows : fact on the of the cateoorical findino "47..-. rn relevant contentious issue that the respondent employees have continued in their service for more than 70 years continuously therefore the leoal princiPle laid down by this Court in ltmadevi case (State of Karnataka v Umadevi (2OOG) 4 SCC 7 : 2OO6 SCC (L&S) 73) at oara 53 squarely applies to the present cases. The Division Bench of the High Court has rightly held that the resPondent emoloyees are entitled for the relief, the same cannot be intertered with by this Court."

18. The Jgdgment of this Court dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.N o.27602 of 2O19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Tempte, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 ot 20.23 dated 10.1O.2O23 and also I / 26 SN, J wp_24924 2022 confirmed by the order of Apex court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLp No.3 2847 of 2024.

20. "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdict Articte 226 oi the Con stitution of India not only power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the mandamus, I ion under have the nature of h s fail consideration. as w 101' In a',such cases,..the High court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directioris to comper performance in an appropriate . and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Governruni'or a pubric authority.,, observed as under:_ "Further, it..is manifest from.the materiar on record that the services of the similarly pra.ea persons who approached the raw t ,t 27 SN, J wp 24924_2022 Courts were regularized. The appellant-Corporation also issued various office orders/circulars dated 20.L2.1989, 11.09.L992, 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 Coutt, 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."

21. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judoment in W.P.No.272L7 of 2(J17 dated 19 ,O9.2017 Dassed reoorted in 2O18(2)ALD oaoe 282 at para 16 and oara 18 observgd as under:- *16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article t4L of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in l|ma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of L994 and 'G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L924, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and -absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time absorption lregularization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of t994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in lJma Devi's case (supra)' But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regularization/absorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 1OO and G.O. Ms. No.212. dated I / t 28 SN, J wp_24924_2022

22.4.1994- do not whittle down the *idth and the lrdg..nt in ttr r&L A?rh-i,r .rr". (rrp."), do", ,-t lower the trajqctory of the directioni-Gsued bFhe supreme court in para 53 of its iudoment in uma-ffiC case (supra). rt is. therefore. not permisJibG-?oEhe respondents to take sherter under Act 2 of 1E94 anF^o. t'rr. tro.zlz- d"t.a zz.e.rgge, to a"ny r"g.ru.i;;ti; to the petitloners' who have, admittedffie criteria laid down in Para No.53 of th@a % 18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.20L7, in oA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ petition is a[owed with the direction to the respondents to consider r:egularisation of thG serviElof the petitioners against tire existinqm rnspectorq and appoint them subjeit@g the criterla laid down in para trto.sg @n uma Devi's case (suora). This orocess muit bEEEiEEd within two,. months from the date of r@f this order."

22. The Division Bench of this court in its Judqment dated 21.04.2020 passed in r.A.N.os.l of 2o2o in 1 of 2019 and w.P.No.23o57 of 2o19 reoorted in 2o2o(4)ALD paoe 379 at paras 45, 48 and oara 5O obserred as under:- "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) year-s 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 tiil date. 48. It ir ,rot kngwn Why th. lrt ,""pond"rrt hm not totto*"d th. d,."!"ior in U-, explained in M.!. Kes=ari,s case (suprffi on"-ti-. .*"."ii" p!-.r".in, t *ho h"d ryork"d for-- =of "qrloy".r without the interyention of the C t9.+.zo06 thg- to *h.th.. th.y "nd "ubj."t " "r. *orking ffipo.t, pro".rr r".ifi""EonJil . 29 SN, J wp_24924_2022 the impugned the writ Petition is allowed; 50. AccordinglY, orders dated 20.8. 2019 passed bY the 1st resPondent rejecting the cases of Petiti oners for regularization of services on one- time basis are decl ared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of n of India; the d 2t of the Constitutio Articles L4, 16 an copv of the order." 23 accordance to law.

24. I / 30 SN, J wp_24924-2022 and extracted above.

25. Takino into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 6. c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: (i)(2o2o) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1e9o(2) scc Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 Law Suit(SC) 1209 (v) (2017) 1 scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2o13) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (2o1s) I scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc 223 (xa) SLP No.32a47 of 2O24 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2o2o(4)ALD page 379 3l SN, J wp_24924_2022 d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O10 and 854 of 2OL2 while uploading the Judgment dated O8.O9.201O passed in W.P.N o.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 19.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.27217 ol 2OL7 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No. 23057 of 2O19 (referred to and extracted above). g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order. / / SN, J trip_24924 2022 32 n t'l n t' itir'l i o 2 Y \ To, 33 SN, J wp_24924_2022 of receipt of a copv of this order, dulv takinq into consideration the observations and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the various iudqments (referred to and extracted above). and in particular, para No.53 of the iudqment of the Aoex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. llma Devi and duly communicate the decision to the oetitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if dfly, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.' SD/.B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER one fair copy to the HoN'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA -1fot Her Ladyship's Kind Perusal)

1. 11 L.R. CoPies. 2. The Under iecretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of LaW* Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

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

4. The state of Telangana , rep. by its Principal Secretary,.Panchaya-thraj and nuiai Empf oyme niOepa rt,iie nt, letan ga n'a Secretariat, Hyderabad

5. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning

6. The District collector (Panchayat) and .c!.ainlr Minimum wages committee an bistrict Selection Commi, Vikarabad District'

7. The Zilla PralaParishad, Vikarabad District, Rep. Oy its chief Executive / Officer. Y g. The tVlandal Parishad Development Officer, Darur Mandal, Vikarabad District 9. . One CC to SRl. CH. GANESH, Advocate [OPUC] 10.Two CCsto GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV ,High courtforthe State of Telangana. [OUT]

11.Two CCs to Gp FOR FTNANCE & PLANNING, High court forthe state of Telangana at HYderabad. [OUT]

12.Two CCs to Gp FOR REVENUE, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

13. ONE CC tO SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, SC FOR ZPPS AND MPP & GPPS, [OPUC]

14.Two CD CoPies DAN Ass t I t / HIGH COURT DATED:1810712025 CC TODAY (-) ( * S n 0[:I 206 1 * ORDER WP.No.24924 of 2022 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ I \