K. Narsimhulu S/o. Chinnaiah v. 1. The State of Telangana

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH. GANESH Counsel for the Respondent No.1: AGP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: AGP FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING Counselfor the Respondent No.3: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4 & 5: SRI G. NARENDER REDDY, S.C. FOR TG ZPPIMPP/GPPS The Court made the following: ORDER 4 SN, J wp_24611 2022 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA wRIT PETITIO N No.24641 oF 2022 ORDER Hreard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counset 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 re:;pondent No.3 and Sri.G.Narender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TG Zpp Mpp GppS, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4. 2 T n r c e s r as under: ".. to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the name of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not treating the services oF petitioner as re,lular one in last gr-ade post for working from 39 long years on full time even not paying legitimate wages of Full Time Sv/eeper, As per appointment dated l4/OZ/ LgA3, as unjust, unfair, totally arbitrary and violation of Articles L4, 16, 2t, 39 i\ 5 SN,.I wp_2.1641_2022 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of our Constitution in denying legitimate living wages to petitioner by not implementing Section 13 and 15 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and provisions of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and Govt. Orders from time to time, to pay living wages to petitioner and prays 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 t4-02-1983 by applying the decision and principle laid by the Honorable Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs State of U.P. (2O19 (1) SCC 516) and Division Bench of this Honorable Court in WP No. 33936 of 2O11 and Batch Cases dated O2lO5/2018 ()n)o r4l ar D ?7q Ts rDBl fallrrrerael hrr rlaaieirrn af tho Honorable High Court of A.P. in W.A.No. 483 of 2021 dated 05/08/2021 based on principle laid by the Honorable Supreme Court in C.A. No. 1254 of 2O18 Aoex Court, dated 23lO3 /2O18 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 with 100 percent compensation as per principle laid by Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Avtar Chand in C.A.No. 3416 - 3445 of 2O10 and Batch Cases dated 19- O2-2O19 (ALD 3 of 2O19 SC 32) by applying the aforesaid principles and decisions of the Honorable Apex Court and Division Benches under Article L4L of our Constitution by this Honorable Court in the case of petitioner and pass...". i i t 6 6 SN. J \\p 24641_2022

3. The case of the titioner in brief as o r the avermerlts made in the affidavit filed bv the petitioner in su pport of the oresent writ petition is as under: Th 3 petitioner was initially appointed vrde proceedings dated 12..02.1983 by the 4th respondent in the existing vacancy on spon:;oring by Employment Exchange and after due selection \..tne interview held on L4.OZ.L}B3 had been posted as contingen-t\ weeper to work in STPS, Singahmpet, Atmakur Mandal, Wanapa District on consolidated pay of Rs.45l- p.m. and had completed more than 4 decades of service but in spite oF repeitted requests of the petitioner for regularization of services of the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.7994 the services of the petitioner had not been regulari;:ed as on date and the request of the petitioner to reckon r:ontingent services of the petitioner for computation oF qualifyirg service to grant of pension and gratuity, arrears of pay with pe -iodical increments revised from time to time had not been considered and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present Writ petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that under sie|El circumstances, this Court passed 7 l) SN,.I rvp_-24(r4 I _2022 orders in I.A. No.1 of 2010 in W.P. No.38763 of 2010, dated

30.10.2018 and this Court allowed W.P. No.3541 of 2018 vide order dated 27.02.2019 and the same also had been upheld by the Apex Court and therefore, the request of the petitioner as prayed for, in the present writ petition should be considered in the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD

5. Learned Standing Counsel appearinq on behalf of the resoondent No.4 submits that the qrievance of the petitioner as out-forth in the present Writ Petition had not been addressed to the respondents herein as on -date and therefore. the ogtitioner cannot comolain inaction on the part of respondents herein in considerino the orievance of the oetitioner and hence, the relief as praved for bv the oetitioner in the present wit oetition cannot be qranted and the petitioner mav be directed to out-forth the petitioner's orievance aq put-forth in the present writ oetition bv wav of a detailed representation to the respondents herein and uoon receipt of the said I 8 Sn-, J \vp_24641-2Q22 reDrese ntatio the resoo dents would consader th same I n accot 'da n ce to law. within a reasonable Deriod.

6. Lea rned counsel a oDearino n behalf of the oeti does n t dis ute the said submi sion mad bv the le rned oCo unsel aDo earinq on behalf of the resoo dent No.4 DIS SI ON AND C NCLUSI ON:- 7, The Apex Court i n the Judqment reDorted in (2O20) 1 scc (L &s) in Prem Sinqh v S te of Utt r Prades others, at Dara 36 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 l:hey 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 ver:;us Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more tha I ten years without the cover of the Court,s order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized .of such emltloyees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regllarized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as others have been regrlarized, we direct that their services be treated as a reg rlar one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be ent tled to_ claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age n 9 SN. J wp_21641-2022 of superannuation. TheY shall be entitled to receive the pension as if theY for puroose of Pension."

8. persons as reqular one.

9. hereunder:- "53 l0 SN, J wp_24641 -2022 ref( egE t ir in r taliti reo ularize as a one-ti me measure. he services f such Doointed, who ave worked h n vears gr-.rr t of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should furl:her ensure that reoular recruitments are s that uo. tn ca reo ui r where te DOrarv ertak n to fill tho e vacant sa nctioned o to be fille r oro sS must be As ra lraina nn w t in motion within six frorrr this date, .,.. le Ju dqment of the Aoex Court dated 20.12-2

10. Tl o24. re or din2 O24 Law Su it (sc) 12()9 in Jaooo Anita and v. Union of India a d others. and the releva nt r N hereu n der: 24 7 r "12. Despite being labelled as ,,part-time workers,,. the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, rarrging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Thr:ir engagement was not sporadic or temporary an nal:ure, instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akan to ther responsibilitaes typica[y associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not enlrage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispen;able nal:ure of their work, 13, The claim bv the resoondents that these were nof regular oosts lacks merit, as the nature of the recJrring nature of these duties necessitates their cla:;sification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial enctagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that o Srr-. J r.vp_2.164 l_ 2022 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 judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (gth 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 the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It. highlights the iudiciary's role in rectifying such misclassifications and ensurinq that workers receive fair treatment. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that emplovees in irregular apoointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned oosts and had served continuously for more than ten years should be considered for regularizati9n as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities; Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to t2 SN, J \,11't_24641_2022 argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary ernployees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the nt's r ur o e it agtainst emplovees who have rendered indispensable serv'ices over decades.

27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is impr:rative for government departments to lead by example in pr-oviding 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 emtrloyment 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 prer:edent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour prar:tices in the country. 28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appr:als are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the Higir Court and the Tribunat are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 .LO.20La are quashed ; e u ii. The a Dpel la nts shall be on dutv forthwith and their e Howe r, the aDD llants shall not be to anv oecuniarv be efits/- entitl back waqes for the oeriod thev have not worked for but would be entitled to continuitv of services for the said period and the same would be cou ted ost- retiral b enefits. " t ea r i l3 S'r""1 wp 21611 2022

11. The Judqment of the ADex Court dated 31.01.2025 reDorted in 2O25 INSC 144 in 'SHRIPAL AND ANOIHER v. N M HAZIABAD" rticul r para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder: " 15. It is manifest that the Aopellant Workmen continuouslv rendered their services over several years. sometimes spannano more than a decade. Even f }ha Farnlnrrar.'c rnm r rcfa I raI fr it rt.af n?a.lrr.ar{ al rn iah er rah raaarelc-dacnila in frrll t a rerhara ntrr.t.rrl directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-establ ished labour iu isorudence. Indian Iabour law stronolv disfavors oerDetual dailv-waoe or a ,rrlaramarti< arr airaa r rricft n +ha work is permanent in nature. Morallv and leoally, workers who fulfil onooino municiDal reouirements ycar after vear cannot be dismassed summaralv as d ienancr h a raari ar rlrrlrr i r rranrrina ^f contractor aqreement. At this juncture. it appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite a recent "temporary" employment practices as done by judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs: ilra ahcariaa would be "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. .,i t4 SN, J wp_24641_2022 Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative emplcyment 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, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: o Misuse "TemDorarv" Lahels: Emolovees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as "temporary,, or "contractual," even when their rotes mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security. and benefits that regutar employees are entitled to, despite oerforming identical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are f'requently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. . Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. n l5 SN, J wp_24641_2022 . Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another, This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental beneflts such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. "

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record.

1.7. 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 engaged in essential, perennial duties, these workers cannot be t6 SN. J sp*24641 2022 releoated to perpetual uncertainty. While concerns of Iules merit consideration. such concerns do not gg:gate equitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic gggular roles for an extended period. 1tl. The impugned order of the High Court, to the g2:tent they confine the Appellant Workmen to future nneaningful back waqes, is hereby set aside with the following directions: I. The discontinuation of the Appellant 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 date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service. IL The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously perform ed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. eligibility for promotions, if any. III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entiUed to 50olo of the back'wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer dD <, l7 a-\ wp2464l SN, J -2022 shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. IV. The Respondent Employer is directed to initiate a fair and transparent process for regularizing the Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement; duly considering the fact that they have performed perennial municipal duties akin to permanent oosts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not impose educational or procedural criteria retroactivelv if such requirements were never apolied to the Appellant Workmen or to similarly situated regular qmployees in the oast. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are reouired, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessary administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees are not indefinitelv retained on daily wages contrary to statutory and equitable norms.

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 18 SN, J \,,tp_24641_2022 dr;rwn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by thr: full bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment arr: 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, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2) But if daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees are not appointed against regular sanctioned posts and their services are availed continuously. with notional breaks. by the State Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient long period i.e. for 7O years, such daily wagers. ad hoc or contractual appointees shall be entitled to minimum of the reaular pay scale without any allowances on the assumption that work of perennial nature is available and having worked for such long period of time. an equitable right is created in such category of persons. Their claim for regularization. if any, may have to be considered separately in terms of legally permissible scheme. (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 70 years of continuous working, a daily wageL ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months."

13. The Judqment of the Apex Court reported in 2O1O(9) SCC 247 between: State of Karnataka and others v M.L. Kesari and others. in oarticular. oaras 4 to 9 reads as under:

4. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was retdered on 10.a.2006 (reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1). In th,zt case. a Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or th'= rules relating to appointment did not confer any right tq? t9 SN, J wp_24641_2022 on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re- engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not inteiffere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the Sfafe or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There mav be cases where irregular appointments (not illeoal apoointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanapoa f 7967 (7) SCR 7281. R.N. Naniundappa [7972 (7t SCC 4O9] and F.N, Naaarajan f 7979 (4) SCC 5O7l and referred to in para 75 above. of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant oosts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten vears or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals, The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the liaht of the orincioles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this iudgment. In that context. the Union of India. the State Governments and instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as a one-time measure the services of such irregularly apoointed who have worked for ten years or more in dulv sanctioned oosts but not under covef of orders of the courts or of iribunals and should further ensure -that reauiar recruitments are undertaken to fill ZO SN, J wp 24641 2022 those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up. in cases where temoorary emoloyees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. ..,, "5. It is evident from the above that ther€ 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 tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its in:;trumentality should have employed the employee and continued nim in service voluntarily and continuously for m)re than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illt:gal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not mrde or continued against sanctioned posts or where the p€rsons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illt:gal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without urdergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. (iii) Umadevi casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentality, to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly apoointed ernoloyees who had served for more than ten years glithout the benefit or prgtection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Urnadevi. directed that such one-time measure must br: set in motion within six months from the date of its; decision (rendered on 1O.4.2O06). 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 in:;trumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and pr3pare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees wtro have been working for more than ten years without ,\h=- 1 a-) 2t SN, J wp_21641 _2022 the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wag e/ad-hoclcasual 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 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 entitlLd 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 10 years of continuous service as on t0'4'20O6 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 Umadevi, are so considered.

8. 22 SN, J \\p _2464 I _2022 t r featin o the const utional or tstons relatino to recruitm nt and aD intment. The true ef fect of the dir ction is that all oersons who have A lllra darte of decision tn Umadevi ) withou the orot ction of anv interim orde r of anv co urt. or tribu al, in an tar,l rraa F. t ^Irlnrrn o tutorv o fa ct that the emDlover has not u dertaken such k di se ntitle such emolovees. the rioht be consi ered for reou larization in terms of the above directlons rn Urnadevi as a one-time measure.

9. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appellant (Zila P;nchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the d€,cision in Umadevi or thereafter. 1(). The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in a(cordance with law. The only further direction that needs ber given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila panchayat, Girdag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casua l/ad-hoc ernployees serving the Zila panchayat and if so whether sr ch employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. If such an e):ercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or ornitting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pr:ndency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be cc,nsidered in continuation of the said one time exercise w thin three months. It is needless to say that if the r€spondents do not fulfill the requirements of para 53 of Urnadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the ernployees who have completed ten years service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be f-) 23 SN,.I wp_24641 _,2022 considered for regularization in suitable lower posts' This appeal is disposed of accordingly. L4. In the iudqment of the Aoex court in Nihal sinqh and others v. state of Puniab reoorted in (2o13'l 14 SCC 65, the supreme court considered the case of absorption of special Police officers appointed by the state, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank 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 exclusively within the authority of the state, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make of persons creating contractual relationship, accept the clefence that there were no sanctionecl posts and so there was iustification for the state to utilise its action is arbitrarY. appointments Ita 24 SN, .I wp 24()41 ._2022 heaven" and that th State h s to cre te them bva con scaous ch orce on the basis of ome ratio nal assess ment eed. ferri n m e before the were not arbitra ilv chosen, their i ADDO tntment as not a 'i rreou la aDDOrn r ent as it had t nitia I been rttade in accord nce with the statu torv Droc r ed under the Police A 1861, and the State eanxlot be heard to sav that they are not entifled to be a e rv es of Sta basis 49, accordinq to i , their aoDointmen ts were ourelv temDor a rv and not aoainst anv sanctioned oosts created bv the State. Itw as held that the iudqment in Umadevi cannot become a licence for exoloitation bv the State and its instrum enta lities and neit er the Governme tof Puniab nor those o blic s r Bank can co tinue sucha t I inconsistent with their obliqa nto nctio accordance with the Constitution.

15. Tlre J doment of the SCC On line sc 179 Nellore Munieioal C r ex Court reDo ed in 201s een B Srinivalusu and oth rsv vitsC mmissio ner, rrati n ReD.b 25 SN, J wp _2464t _2022 Nellore Distri And ra Pradesh and othe h in oarticular paras 7 and 8 reads as under: 7 t requlariza tion flows from the .O. No.212 dated 2.4.L994. ior to the issuan of the said G.O. but even not only subsequent to the issue of 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 respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the aPPellants. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the 8. 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' services be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Collector/ Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (B) SCC 480.

16. In Amarkant Rai v state of Bihar reported (2o15) 8 scc 265, the supreme court held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularisation of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not itlegal, and to ensure securitv of employment of those oersons, who had served the, State Government ancl their instrumentalities for more than ten )6 SN, J \,!p_24641 2022 vears". In that case, emo ovee was w rkinq for 29 vears. This dr:cision aoDroves earlier view exDressed in M.L Kesari r:xtracted bove.

17. fn Stat of Jarkhan d v Kamal Prasad reoo din 223 7 2 e Cou rt and it was held as foIlows: fn view of the cateoorical "47 dina of fact on the reletva t contentious ,'ssue that the resDondent m DN' their s contin rciole laid down bv this Cou te of arna taka v Umadevi (2 f t .&<) 7 ?) .,t Ea carr a , case in Umadev, 6)4SCC7 : 2006 , i,lo t^ <ff' I bv this Court." €,

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.27602 of 2O19 which pertains to regutarization of 35 ltlMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2O23 dated

10.10.2:023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2024 in SLP No.32841 ol 2O24. (-\ 2'7 SN. J wp.24641.20:2

19. The Judoment of the Aoex Court dated 19.08. 2025 oassed in Civil A oeal No.8558 of 2O18 re Dorted in 2O25 NLINE S in "D ln h State of U.P. and Another", i oa rticu la r, the relevan t oara Nos.t3 . L7. L8. t9 a nd 2O are e tracted hereunder: "13. As we have observed in both jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission's further contention that the appellants are not "full-time" employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State's refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that miy arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusa ls.

17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long term extraition of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is nolt a ialisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. 28 SN, J wp_2{61l 2022

18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad- hoc sm" thrives where administration is opaque. The Stal.e Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrtrngements, and they must explaln, with evidence, wh)' they prefer precarious engagement over san.tioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Corstitution oF India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running. "19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their dut es, and the material indicating vacancies and conrparator regularisations, we issue the following dire:ctions: i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary po!;ts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect frotn 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission anc a fresh decision by the State on sanctionlng posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Sel,lction Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-UI (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (peon/Attendant/Guard or i'l 29 SN, J wp_24641 2022 equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given abor,'e. ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post frorn time to time, and (b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization/retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 60/o per annum from the date of default until payment. iii. Retired aooetlants: Any apoellant who has 30 SN, J wp_24641 2022 terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgment. iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Aplrellant No. 5 and anv other appellant who has arrears under clause (ii) uo to the date of death, tog,ether with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistentlv with clause (i), within three months of this Judoment. \r. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent conrpetent authority, shall file an affidavit of conrpliance before this Court within four months of this Judgment. 2(t. We have framed these directions conrprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh teclrnicalities, rolling "reconsiderations," and adninistrative drift which further prolongs the insr:curity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Jus,-ice in such cases rest on simpliciter I 3l i\ SN, J wp,21641 _2022 directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 2l of the Constitution of India."

20. "1OO. 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 duty-bound to exercise such 32 SN, J wo 2464t 2022 consideration, 1Ct1. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion corferred upon the Government or a public authority."

21. Provided that - (a) in the case of a Government servant in a Ctass IV seryice or post who held a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent persionable post prior to the 77h November, 1960, service rendered before attaining the age of sixteen (16) years shall not coLtnt for any purpose; and (b) in the case of a Government servant nocovered bv clituse (a), service rendered before attaining the age of eighteen (18) years shall not coun| except for compensation gratuity. 14 (1) rhe service of a Government servant shall not qualify duties are and 33 SN, J wp_24641.2022 pay unless his regulated by the Government, or under conditions determined by the Government, (2) For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the expression service means service under the Government and paid by the Government from the Consolidated Fund of the State but does not include service in a non-pensionable establishment unless such service is treated as qualifying service by the Government."

22. The Judqment of the Aoex court dated 23.08.2017 is observed as under: ..6. The pari materia provision contained in Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab civil services Rules had been struck down by a Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kesar chand v. State of Punjab. The challenge by the State against the aforesaid decision of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High court was negatived by this " Court. The matter came up for consideration before this court, once again, in Punjab sEB versus Narata Singh. While dealing with the said question this Court in Para 25 of the report held that the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was perfectly justified in striking down Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules resulting in obliteration of the distinction made in the said Rules between "temporary and officiating Service" and work-charged Service on the said basis, this Court took the view that the period of work-charged service should be reckoned for purposes of computation of "qualifying service" for grant of Pension.

7. As already observed, the provisions of Regulation 370 of the Civil Services Regulations applicable to the State of Uttarakhand are pari materia with the provisions of Rule 3.17(ii) of the Punjab civil services Rules, discussed above.-If that is so, we do not see as to why the period I I\ ) ,..I 34 SN, J \"tp_246:l| .2022 r "oualifvino service" for orant of co mDutation pgnsion. The pari materia provisions of Rule 3.17(ii) of thr: Punjab Civil Services Rules having been interpreted and understood in the above manner by this Court in Narata Singh we do not find any room tor taklng any other vierw except to hold that the glant of oension. We order accordingly, allow these appeals and set aside the impugned orders passed by the Hi,lh Court."

23. The Review Petition (C) No.9 of 2018 filed before the Apex C:ourt Aggrieved by the orders dated 23.O8.2017 passed in Civi! Appeal No. 1O806 ol 2OL7 in Habib Khan Vs State of Uttarakhand was dismissed by the Apex Court vide orrlers dated 16.01.2018.

24. fn W-P No-1425 of 2(J19. under similar f I 35 SN. J wp_24641_2022 Deoartment Ministerial Service Association at paras 9, 10 and 11 held hereunder: "9. Similar view was taken by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in State of Andhra Pradesh V. M; Raja Rao and also the Karnataka High Court in B. H. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited. 1FA rhrrrra llinlr frrrrrfc

10. In view of the judgments of the Apex Court and nfhar. view that the past service of the applicant, who is the resoondent herein, prior to his reoularization, has to be consldered for the of pensionary benefits. 11. It is also to be noted here that the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.6524 of 20L4 and batch dated 14.Lt.20L4 were not challenged and they have become final. Therefore, once the orders of the Tribunal are not challenged and have become final, there is no other option for the authorities except to implement the same."

25. A cirmilar rar-a lrlzan hrr flra Anarz /^atttl- iudoment dated 18.02.2O22 in Petition for Soecial Leave years and thereafter now to contend that as the services rendered by the respondent are ad-hoc, he who has rendered 3O ye 36 SN, J wp_24641_2022 urtreasonable. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to have taken such a stand. In the present case, the High Court has not committed any en-or rn directing the State to pay pensionary benefits to thr: respondent who has retired after rendering more than 30 years service. H€rnce, the Special Leave Petition stands dismissed."

26. Ttre Division Bench of erstwhile AP High Court vide its order dated 17.O3.2016 in W.P.No.82O1 of 2016 very clearly hetd that the Tribunal had rightly come to the conclusion that temporary service shall be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension under Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules,

1980. Ihis Court opinei that in the present case, the respondents failed to discharge their duty in examininq E__ 37 !' Sr"N, J wp ?1641 _2022 periodicat increment revised from time to time from the date of apoointment of the oetitioner. urt oDines that Detiti er is entitled for 27. This consideration of oetitioner's case for qrant of the relief as orayed for in the oresent Writ Petition in view of the observations of the Apex Court in various iudqments (referred to and extracted above)

28. This Court ooines that the resuest of the oetitioner for reqularization of oetitioner services cannot be rejected on the oround that petitioner had not comoleted minimum oeriocl of 1O vears as on 25.11.1993. admittedlv as borne on recorcl, oetitioner herein comoleted 1O vears of service as on the ctate of filinq of the o.resent Writ Petition and as per the observations of the Apex Court in the case of State of Puniab and others vs. Jaqiit singh and other in particular at oara No.54 and its sub-paras (1)(2) and (3\ observations in the various iudoments of the ADex Court (referrect to and extracted above). the petitioner herein is entitled for consideration of .. .Pg:gtioner's case for :,l.iij:,: . i. 38 SN, J wp_24641_2022 reoularization of Detiti r's services and for consideration of oetitioner's reouest to treat the temporary services of the petitioner in the last qrade post of SweeDr-ir as reqular one fo all purposes for qrant of last orade pav with periodical increments revised from time to time frorr the date of aopointment of the petitioner.

29. Takino into nsideration:- (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearin,g on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP GPPS, appearing on behalf of the re:;pondent No.4 (c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various Jludgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enllisted below: (i)(2020) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) scc Page 396 (iiilr 2O2s INSC 144 (iv)r 2024 LawSuit(SC) 12Og (v) (2oL7) 1 scc 148 (vi.) 2o1o(9) SCC 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC 39 SN, J \vp_24641 2022 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2oL4) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.328,47 of 2o24 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O2s SCC ONLINE SC L735 (xv) (2019) 10 SCc s42 (xvi)Review Petition (C) No.9 of 2()18, 16.O1.2018 (xvii) (2oo1) 10 scc 473 (xviii) Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1lO9 / 2022, dated La.O2.2O22 The Writ Petition is allowed, since it is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner had been (c) discharging his duties as Sweeper since 14.02.1983 3t, STPS, Singahmpet, Atmakur Mandal, Wanaparthy District and is rendering the same services as on date, the .petitioner is directed to submit a detailed representation to the respondents herein putting-forth the grievance of the petitioner as put-forth in the present Writ Petition seeking to consider and treat the temporary services rendered by the petitioner in last grade post of Sweeper as regular one from the date of petitioner's initial appointment i.e., 14.02.1983 to till date as full time Sweeper in Primary School, Singampeta, Atmakur Mandal, Wanaparthy District, T.S., and further, to duly consider the request of the petitioner for extending the last grade \ \ { t 40 SN, J wp_24641_2022 pay benefits wittr periodical increments from time to time w.e.f. t4.O2.1983 to till ld"tu with arrears, duly treating i the services of petitioner as regular one in last grade post anci to re:ckon the contingent services of petitioner for computatiion of qualifying service for grant of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits and upon the respondents receiving the said representation of the petitioner putting-forth the grievances of the petitioner as put-forth in the present writ petition the respondents are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate reasoned speaking orders in accordance to law, within a period of four (O4) weeks thereafter, in conformity with principles; of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, duly taking into considerartion the relevant documents in support of petitioner's case and also the observations and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and duly communicate the decisrion to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. I I i 4t [ '''i SN, J wp_24641_2022 Miscellaneous petitions, if dfly, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// To One faircopy to THE HONOURABLE MRS JUS (For Her Ladyship's Kind L. VIJAYA LAXM ECTION OFFICER NANDA

1. 11 L.R. Copies. 2. The Under secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and company Affairs, New Delhi.

3. The Secretary, .Telangana Advocates Association Library, High court Buildings, Hydbrabad

4. ]P er!ryipal secrqlary, Panchayathraj & Rural Development Department, State of Telangana, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

5. fhe Principal.Secretary, Finance & Planning Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

6. The District Collector & Chairman of [Minimum Wage Committee & Chairman of District Selectio!^Committee, Wanaparthy Disirict, Golt of ielangana, Wanaparthy Town, TS.

7. trre crrier Executive officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, wanaparthy District. 8. The tMandal Parishad Development Officer, Atmakur Mandal, Wanaparthy District, TS

9. One CC to SRI CH. GANESH, Advocate [OPUC] 10. Two CCs to GP for Pa.nchayat Raj qnd Rural Devetopment, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTJ 1 1 . Two CCs to GP for Finance & Planning, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

12.Two CCs to QP_ for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.toul :

13.one cc to sRl c. NARENDER REDDY, s.c. for TG zPPtMpp/cpps loPUcI

14.Two CD Copies MP w HIGH COURT DATED i18l07l2A25 HE't t I0 I f{, R 7llT Z * ORDER WP.No.24641 of 2022 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ..d'A 3o Xa.'