Writ Petition No. 24928 of 2022 · 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, 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 Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned Standing Counsel for TG ZPP MPP GPPS, appearing on behalf of respondent No,4.

2. The petitioner aooroached the Court seekino Draver asu der: "...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 43 long years on full time even not paying legitimate wages of Full Time Sweeper, as per appointment order dated 25-01-1979, as unjust, unfair, totally arbitrary and 4 SN, J v;p 24928 2022 violation of Afticle 14, 16,2L, 39(d), 43 ar< our Constitution in denying legitimate livi t petition by not implementing Section 13 Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and provisior Remuneration Act, 1976 and Govt. Orders f time, to pay living wages to petitioner z I direct the Respondents herein to treat th() the petitioner as regular one in last grade 6rr date of initial appointment of 25-Ol-7979 as No. 38 dated 01-02-1980 and GO Ms. No. 1t 03-1990 by applying the decision and prirrt the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prl State of U.P. (2019 (1) SCC 516) and Divi:;t this Honble Court in WP No. 33936 of 20 Cases dated 02-05-2018 (2020 (4) ALD l followed by decision of the Hon'ble High CcL W.A.No. 483 of 202L daled 05-08-2021 principle laid by the Honble Supreme Court t254 of 2018 Apex Court, dated 23-03-2C', contingent services of petitioner for co'r qualifying service to grant of pension, gratr i retirement benefits by releasing consequent benefits in the last grade post lncludir increments, as revised from time to timt: compensation as per principle laid by Aper case of Union of India Vs. Avtar Chand in C., 3445 of 2010 and Batch Cases dated 19-02- of 2019 SC 32) by applying the aforesaid 1r 300 (A) of I wages to and 15 of s of Equal om time to d prays to services of st from the per GO Ms. 3 dated 14- iple laid by n Singh Vs rn Bench of and Batch 79 rS (DB) rt of A.P. in based on rn C.A. No. B to reckon putation of .y and other al monetary 1 periodical with 1007o lou rt in the r.No. 3416 - 1019 (ALD 3 inciples and 5 SN, J wp_24928-2022 decisions of the Honble Apex Court and Division Benches under Article 147 of our Constitution by this Honble Court in the case oF petitioner and pass...". 3 a a^raaaal aarr r ha ]rrlf af +ha rtoi itiatnar nlrainer ralir affidavit filed in suooort of the Dresent writ Detition n the aver irait+c rit da n n h rvices Detitio ner with the respondents herein for mo re than a r{aarda aan}a /ci h t the etiti atllaf lc a n + + aA Ca +ha r relaef as oraved for an the oresent wrat Detition. PERU ED THE RE ORD:- DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- 4 I asr.natl unsel a n ha half of that the su in the case is souare v covered bv the order of th s Court, dated O8.O9.2O1O oa ssed in W.P.No.24377 ol 20O7 reoorted in ALD Pa 4

nfirmed an W 2O1O. dated 1 ,06,2013 and also order, dated 19.09.2017 oassed in W.P.No.27217 of 2Ol7 reported in 2O18 (2) ALD Paoe 282 and also the order, dated 2L.O4. o O oassed 2 .P.N .23057 ot 2 19 re orted i 2 20 4 A 37 6 SN,.I *,p_24928 2022 5 resDo ndent No.4 submits that the orae!/ I nce ndino cou sel aDDea no on behalf of the f the Detati ner as put -forth in the Dresent Writ Pri :ition had not n her tn :i On date and therefo re. the oetitio er cannot co Dlain irr rction on the J I titioner oart of resoondents h rein in consid erino th q rieva nce of d hence, the relief as ora' :d for bv the oetitioner in the oresent wit oetition cann1 't be oranted and no Mandamus ca n be issued aoai nst tl"d: resoondents hereunder as souqht for and the petitit ner mav be directed to D ut-fort h the oetitioner's orietl ance as Dut- forth in the oresent Writ Petition bv wav of a de at representataon to the resDonden hereir and uoon receiot of the said reoresentation, the resog ndents would hin a con sider he same in acco ance to I rea sonable oeriod.

6.L does not dis Dute thesa dsu bmission made unsel aDpearinq on behalf o I the oetitioner the le r standinq counsel aDDearino on behalf of l:l ,e respendent No.4 7 SN, J \\/p 24928_2022

7. The Apex eourt in the iudqment reported in (2O20) 1 SCC (L&S) an Prem Sinoh v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, at para 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 3O- 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 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 drfference 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 reqular establishment and the services rendered bv them rioht from the dav thev entered the work-charoed establishment shall be counted as oualifvino service for DU TDO se of oension." L The Aoex Court in the se of Dharwad District PWD Literate Daaly Waqe Emplovees Association Vs. State of Karnataka reoorted in 1990(2) SCC Paqe 396 laid orinciole that the State should not k eD a Derson ln temoorarv or 8 SN. J \\p 24923_2022 service f or lono nod and have t ) treat such DC rsons as reqular one.

9. Para No.53 of th of the iudqm ent of t e Apex Court t in the tate of Karna ka and othe Vs. U radevi, dated 10.04.2OO6 reoorted in (2OO6) 4 SCC 1 is extracted r hereu nder: - 'l 1 n cR 12 ore but withou "53. One asoect needs to be clarified, ' -here mav be cases wh ere irreoular ao ointment:; (not illeoa! in S.V. Narayanajpa aooointm ents) as exolaine a lra t1972 (1) 196 n scc 4091 and B.N. Naqarai n 11979 4) SCC 507 and referred to in oara 15 above, of lulv qualified s in duly sa ctioned vaca nt Doli s miqht have DE haver continued to been made and t e emo lovee work for ten vears or h interventi on of orders of the courts ( L of tribunals. The o uestio n of reoularizatio nofthes rvices of s c emolovee s mav have to be considere C onm rt in the f the orincioles s the liqht vereferred to and in the liqht of this cases a iudqment. In that context, the Unior of India, the their in g:rumentalities State Governments and should 'lv aoo o inted, m easure. the servi ces of such irreoul, w ho have worked for ten vears or more in dulv of he sa nct o ned courts or of tribuna ls and should furtlr :r ensure that reoular recruitme ts are undertaken to fill vacant sanct ioned oosts that reouire ! r be filled uo, tn cases where temDorary e olovees 3 : dailv waqers are beino now em loved. The orocess _ nust be set in motion within six m ke steDs to reo ularize a! a one- oosts b t not under cover I ed bv ttt s Cour onths from this da +r t ) I 9 SN, J wp 24928_2022

10. The iudqmen t of the Aoex Court date reoorted in 2 24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 in Jaooo Anita and

20.L2.2024. others v. Union of India and others, and the relevant oaraoraoh N .12. L3. 24. 26. 27 and 28 are extracted hereu nder: "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. The claim bv the resoondents that 13. these were not reoular oosts lacks merit, as the nature of the work oerfor ed bv the aooellants was oerennial and fun amental to the functionino of the offices. The recu rrin I nature of these duties necessltates 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. t0 SN. .I wp_24928 2022

24. The landmark judgment of the Unite( State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporati ln [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a prltinent example from the private sector, illustrati rg the consequences of misclassifying employe ls to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as indeJ) )ndent contractors, thereby denying them err:loyee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers \r'/':re, in fact, common-law employees and were en::led to the same benefits as regular employees. Tirt Court noted that large Corporations have incr,: lsingly adopted the practice of hiring terr porary employees or independent contractors as ar means of avoiding payment of employee beneflts, t lereby increasing their profits. This judgment undt: scores the prrnciple that the nature of thr: work performed, rather than the label assigne(l to the worker, should determine employment stat ls and the corresponding rights and beneli s. It hiohliqhts the iudiciarv's r le in re,: :ifvino such misclassifications and ensurin3 that workers receiv fair treatment. "irregular" 26, While the judgment in Uma Devi supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor' entries and ensure appointments adhered to consti utional principles, rt is regrettable that its princip es are often misinterpreted or misapplied tl legitimate claims of long serving employ€ S. ThiS judgment aimed to distinguish between illega l" me nts. apPoirl (es tn held t t irrequIar apDointments, who rrete-.!g!! s3 qed in dulv sanctioned Dosts and had ;erved continuouslv for more than ten vears_;hould be considered for reoularization as _l one- time measure. However, the laudable rr tent of the judgment is being subverted when ins,t tutions rely on its dicta to ind iscriminately rej )ct the claims of employees, even in cases whr: e their rica ll ( SN, J wD 24928_2022 appointments 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 approp riate. This selective aoplication distorts the iudqment's spirit and ouroose, effectivelv weaDon izinq it aoainst emolovee who have rendered indisoen ble 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 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. 28. In view of the above dlscussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application ls allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 . tO.20LB are quashed; 12 SN, J wp]4928 2022 ll. rvlces fl dfo reo ula se The a Doella nts sha lbe _ Eaken back on dutv forthwith and _ their rwith. However, the a DDE llants shall Jot be rn ia rv a benefits/bac k waoes for the .1 reriod thev have nof wor ed for _ vould f sr: 'vrces be entitled to con lnuttv for the said eriod and the _ same would be coun ted for their _ post- n fits." r tiral

11. Th d m of th A ex d I 31.0 .2025 reDo rted in 2o25 rNs 144 tn *SHRIPA AN E A OTHER NAGAR NIGAM , GHAZ IABAD", in Darti cular , the relevant DATA N os.15 to 19 a re extra cted hereun der: oell a the A in must r rolls manifest that nt Workmen everal *15. rt conti n uouslv ren dered their services over sometimes soa nnano moret dec de. rduced in full. V n if c the EmDlover 's failure to furnish srr ch records- adverse desoite direction s labour u nder inference favors urrs r oerpetual dailv-waoe or contractual er oaqements in ct rcu msta nces where the work is J |ermanent in r AI n onqo ino municioal r cannot be iremen u ts mts dsu mmaril tn h to do so-allowrs a btis :d ve r afte dispensable, who fu ne contr ilolv di re. M r law ian la well-e v ali nce. d vea r l3 SN. J vtp 24928 2022 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 rag raphs: "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 observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent thatcan 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: . Misuse of "Temoorarv" Labels: Employees enoaqed for work that is essential. recurrino. and inteqral to the functionino of an institution are often Iabelled as "temoorarv" or "contractua 1, " even when their roles m I rror t4 SN, J wp 24928]022 ( req u lar emol(, deorives wor employees are notice, as seen rndermines the :ts workers to a s of the quality ack of Career s often find nities for skill ntal pay raises. 3s, creating a d their regular butlons being ,ees, such (ers of the miscla ssification secu ritv. and benefits that ula r emDl vees are enti tled to, deSD!:e oerforminq identica I tasks. . Arbitra ry Termination: Temporarl' frequently dismissed without cause c r in the present case. This practice principles of natural justice and subj(r state of constant insecurity. regardl(:: or duration of their service. o I Progression: Temporary emPloY€ themselves excluded from oPPortL development, promotions, or increm( They remain stagnant in their ro systemic disparity between them ar counterparts, despite their contr equally significant. o Using Outsourcing as a Shir: C: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing ro ( s performed by temporary employees, effectively r: llacing one set of exploited workers with another. I lis practice not only perpetuates exploitation but als ) demonstrates a deliberate eFfort to bypass the o'l igation to offer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Ben,: employees are often denied fundit such as pension, provident fund, ltr and paid leave, even when the t decades. This lack of social securit) and their families to undue hardslt cases of illness, retirement, circumsta nces. " its: Temporary nental benefits alth insurance, ten u re spans subjects them r, especially in )r unforeseen

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminatior L Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wtt tes with some l5 SN, J wp]492EjN22 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 Disputes Acl, 1947, and that they were enoaqed in essential, oerennial duties, these workers cannot be releqated to oeroetual uncertainW. W ile concerns of municio I budoet and comDliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns oblioations do not absolve the EmDlover of statuto uitable e6+illarrr-rr+c raAaaA a+6 n bureaucratic lamitations ca nnot trumD the leoitimate riohts of workmen who h ve served continuouslv in de facto reoular roles r an extended oeriod.

18. The imo o ned orde r of the Hioh ourt. to the ell nt Work en to future extent thev confi ne he ADD dailv-waqe enqaqement without continuitv or t a t6 SN, J wp_24928 2022 meaninqful back waoes, is herebv set a side with the followinq directions: I. The discontinuation of the Appel i nt Workmen's services, eFfected without compliance'/ith Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industri I Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. A I orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the App3lant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in s: -vice from the date of their termination, for all purp cses, including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shal reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their resp€( -ive posts (or posts akin to the duties they previct sly performed) within four weeks from the date ol this judgment. Their entire oeri od of absen ce (fr g m the date of g rent) shall be q rice and all sen I orltv and lreins ed for c ntinuitv of uentia I ti n unti a eliqibili tv for or motions, if a nv. III. Considering the length of servict, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o o' :he back wages from the date of their discontinu I ion until their actual reinstatement. The Responderr Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within thre : months from the date of their reinstatement. IV. The Resoondent E olover s dire ed to orocess for initiate a fair and tra nsoarer reo ula rizino the Aooella nt Work I ren within six s from the date of reinst rtement, dulv eri nq the fact that thevl' 6 ve performed to permanent nial municioal duties akin reou lif ization, the Dosts. Emplover shall not im OOSe r3lucational or procedu ral criteria retroacti'r:lv if a rlied to the I ADDellant work me n orto s larlv situated In u rements were In assessino v r n Ll t7 SN, J w 24928 2022 e st. in th that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist reouired, the Resoond nt Emolove shall expedite all necessarv administrative Drocesses to ensure these Ionotime emplovees are not itelv retained on daalv waqes contra rv to indefi statuto and eouatabl 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. The ADex Court in a iudo ment reDorted in (20L7t L Supreme Court Cases 148, in State of puniab and others vs Jaoiit Sinqh and others at Paras 54 and its su -Daras (1)(2)(3 of the said iud qment observed S 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 carrid on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The fu bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary emptoyees, who fe in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the minrmum 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 undergorng a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidats, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay xale from the date of engagement. (2) But if dailv waoers, ad hoc or contractual s are not aDDointed aoainst aoDotn reoular sanctioned Dosts and their services are availed t8 SN, J sp 24928 2022 . bv the State continuouslv. wit, notional 1 cr a sufficient Gove ment or its instrumen lities ilv waoers. ad lons oeriod i.e. for 7O years, such d4 be entitled to hoc or contractual aooointees shall- mrntmum of the reoular oav scalC without anv allowa nces on oerennial nature is available and ha'1no worked for L table rioht is sucb lonq period of i claim c reqularization, if anv, mav have ta_be considered seDara telv in n such catesorv of oe ons. f, of leoallv Dermis 5 ble scheme, e assum tion I \at time, an eoa , (3) In the event, a claim is made for mil imum pay scale aier more than three years and i tto months of completion of 70 years of continuous rcrking, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee st all be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and tt,t t months."

13. The iudoment of the Aoex couIt reoor!:d in 2O1O(9) ers v sec 247 b M.L.Kesar i and others n oarticular, Da ras I to9reads as n: State of Ka rnata ka nd oth u nder: caSe 4) SCC n in Sta 1). In tba, of Karnataka v. UmaLi 'vi was rendered 4. The d in 2O06 ( on 70. 4.2006 (reDo a of this Court held that a7,1 ointments made tution without fotlowing the due paocess or the ules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and cou rts cannot direct their absorption, regtt )rizittton or re' engagement nor make their service permanc tt, and the High Couft in exercise of iurisdiction under Att cle 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directttt ts for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unles; the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, r terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts tr )st be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly fi th the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or it: nstru mentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facil t lte the bypassinq of the constitutionat and statutory mandates. 'his Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casuat or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be rade permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the''levant rules or in l9 SN, J ,vtP_24928_2022 adherence of Atticles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below :

53. One a<rra,.l ,,p.p.rl< td he clarified. There nraw ha cases where irreoular appointmenB (not illeoal appointmentsl as explained in S,V. Narayanappa f7967 (7) SCR 72a1, R.N. Naniundapoa 17972 (7) SCC 4O9l and B.N. Nasaraian 17979 (4) SCC 5O7I and referred to in Dara 7 5 above. of dulv aualified Delrsonc in dulw sanlrlir.rna..l vacant ,rar<l< m tt ht hawa been made and the emplovees have continued to work for ten vears or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of reoularization of the seruices of such emplovees mav have to be considered on merits in the lioht of the orinciples settled by this Court in the cases aboverefeffed to and in the lioht of this iudoment. In th t context, the Union of a the State entalities should k a one-time measure. the services of such irreoularly aDoointed. who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orderc of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that reoular recruitments are that require to be f illed uo, in cases where temoorarv emoloyees or dailv wagers are beino ow em lo The within six months from this date. .... dertaken to fill thos c, n "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 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 not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or 20 s\. I rlp 24928 2022 t, ntatitv, who ha continued against sanctioned posts or whe e the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minim -t n qualifications, the appointments witl be considered to be illeg). But where the person employed possessed the prescribed q"alifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but ha I been selected without undergoing the process of open comD'titive selection, such appointments are considered to be irrequl) .. (iii ) Umadevi casts a dutv uDon t, te concerned tot a ke steps to Gove nment or instru. of those , rreo u ,rlv ao ointed reoula r, ze the without the benefit or Drotection of anv ir erim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time mea ure. U adev directed that such one-time measure Itust be set in motion within six m onths from t e date cf its dectston ( rendered on 7O.4.2OO61. 6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be t oderstood in its proper perspective. This would normally me) t that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or ea.) instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and pr: )are a list of all casuat, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who tt ve been working for more than ten years without the interven.t tn of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process / trification as to whether they are working against vacant post; and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if s(, regularize their services. served for more 1l t j

7. At the end of six months from the dat I,Jmadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc, t were still pending before Courts. Consr:' departments and instrumentalities did not co'' time regularization process. On the otttt Government depar-tments or instrumentalitt') one-time exercise excluding several ? consideration either on the ground that their cz in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such L:t employees who were entitled to be considere 1 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose considered for regularization, merely becart exercise was completed without considerin l because the six month period mentioned in p t has expired. The one-time exercise should : wage/ad hoc/those employees who had put 'of decision rn zsual employees 'Lt ently, several mence the one- r hand, some undertook the nployees from ;es Alere pending 'cu mstances, the in terms of Para :heir right to be e the one-time their cases, or a 53 of Umadevi tnsider all daily' tn 10 years of 2t SN, J \tP 24928_2022 continuous service as on 10.4.2006 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 5j 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. aJ va>tc catviaa la,' -^dj;6..^r.< ir, ,naFa ihan

8. The obiect behind the said direction in para 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure that those who ha ve ,rrri without the Drotection of any interim orders of courts ot tribunals. before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for reqularization in view of their lono seruice. Second is to ensure that the tlanarlntan ts /in<l rumanfalii s rl., n^i Dractice of emolovino oersons on ilv-waoe/ad- o eriods and then tequlafize them on the sround that thev have served for more than ten vears, therebv defeatino the constitutional or statutorv orovisions relatino to recruitment and aDoointment. The true effect of the direction is that all Dersions who have worked for more than ten vears as on 70.4. 2OOG (the date of decision in Utnade vt ithout the ,aar'rraittrla w ltrtcfc interi, rder of a the re u Ite a i , n rtrtc<ac< trr..a,ti entitled to be considered for reqularization. The fact that the emDlover has not undert,aken such exercise of reoularization within six monthso f the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken onlv in reoard to a limited few, will not disentitle such emplovees. the rioht to be considered for reqularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measune.

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

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the casre,s of respondents should be considered in accordance with 22 SN, J wp 24928 _2022 taw. The only further direction that needs be 1iven, in view of lJmadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Ga 1 ry should now undertake an exercise within six months, a !'( neral one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether th( re are any daily wige/casual/ad-hoc emptoyees serving the Zila )anchayat and if so whether such employees (including the re pondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umac evi. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized, Il ;uch an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or (tlitting the cases of respondents 7 to 3 because of the pendent.'. of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered it continuation of the said one time exercise within three month:;. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not Le regularised. If the employees who have completed ten year; service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribe I for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may h considered for regularization in suitable lower posts, This apg al is disposed of accordingly. f the ADex Court il Nihal Sa L4. In the iudoment and others v. State of Puniab reoo 65, the Supreme Court considered the cas€ cf absorption ln ( 2013 4 cc h of Special Police Officers appointed by th,: State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose lisposal their services were made available. It held thal. the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did rr rt render the appeltants 'employees' of those Ban k s since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that th e creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadr: is a matter 23 SN, J w_24928 2022 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 the d ere w f nctioned so the r.a urtc ir ralifia ation Ja I +]r a State to servtces f larqe number of oDle like the aooellants for decades. It h ld that "sanctioned oosts do not fall from heaven" and that the State has to create them bv a conscro us choice on the basi of some rational a sessment of need. eferrino to Umadevi, it held that the oDel ta nts before them were not arbitrarilv chosen, their initial aoDointment as not an 'irreoular' aDDointment as it had been made in accordance with the statu orv orocedure nrcs.. rilrad rrn d r theP li Art 1861 and f ha qtrfa cannot be h rd to sav that thev are not entitled to be absorbed into the services of the State on Dermanent basis as. acco ino to it- their aoooi ntments were ourelv temDorarv an not aoainst anv sanctioned Posts created bv the State. ft was held that the iudqment in Umadevi cannot becom e a licence for exoloitation bv the State and 24 SN, J \4p 24928 2022 its instrum enta lities and neit er the G,p rrernment Of nc( rtinue such a Pun oractice inconsistent with their obliqation J o function in iab nor those ublic ctor Banks ) nce with th 15, The iudoment of the ADex Court reD( rted in 2015 een B Srin ivasult an othersv eSCl 797 SCC Onlin Nellore Munici oal Coroor ation o.bv its ( ommissioner, Nel ore Dis trict, Andhra Pradesh and s ln oa rticular paras 7 and g_ggad5-ag-U4llgf sontttt adopted bv the (7) We find it difficult toa ot the aooellants tos tk reoularization urt. The rioht of th Hioh Co '.. The appellant flo ws from the G.O. No.212 dated 22. 4.19! i"r. been in service of the first resoondent nc'1 onlv prior to the tssua neLQ f the said G.O. but even subseoue l. to the issue of t eing a statutorY till todAV The respondent MuniciPalitY G.O. of the above body is obtiged by the G.O' 212(supra). InsE te most 20 years mentioned G.o. the respondents kept quite fcr al and continued without regularising the service of the appellar ls to extract work from the appellants. ). B. In the circumstances, refusing the betr, menttoned G.O. on the ground that the appctt the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is nat circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifyir,g appeat by directing that the appellants' servi: with effect from the date of their completin continuous service as was laid down by thi:; Cotlector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Sing,1 SCC 4BO. 'fit of the above ants approached justified. In the the order under :s be regularised r their five year Court in District & Ors. 2009 (B)

16. In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar reD scc 265, the SuDreme Cou rt held that fhe objective 2015) 8 ( =c 25 SN, J vq 24928 2022 behind the exception carued out in this case was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure aPPointments, which not illegal' and to ensure secu ritv of irregular but em olovment of tho ov rn n n e n swhohadservedthe State ie for o ears" v In that case,em DIovee wa Th ls ecisaon AD rov s M.L.Ke arl xtracted above. workino for 29 vea rlierv aew ex ressed in InS tate of ar

17. (20 14) 7 scc 22 v al P Kam ed tn milarvl ew was taken bv the s Su eCourt and itwasheld sfoIlow n t n di, I e ou v *4 v, a th s Co rt s 6 2 c oloveesare en titled for the rel, o fa e 70 ela id do wn bv re re, atak,avU mad vt devi case (State of Kar 3s a a vts nB h s e thesa me cannot be the eqalDrinciol Um 7 , e 7 e r o 'a e

18. The Judgment of this Court dated 06'L2'2022 passed in W.P.No.27602 of 2O19 which pertains to regularizataon of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha 26 SN, J wp]4928-2022 Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda Eri strictr which had been upheld by the Division Benbh of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2O23 dated 1O.1O.2:l 123 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated 09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024. The ud oment oftheA oex Co rt in Hari Kris na I L9. Man dir Trust V. Stat e of Maharashtra a do le ou rt 2020 u reme 6 a E Nos .1OO and 1o1 held as fol lows: reDo d rrrti ular oara but ar "100. The High Courts exercising their ju t sdiction under only have the Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ncti power to issue a writ of mandamus or ir the nature of e dut xercise such v-bound to ( mandamus, oowe r, where the Gove rnment or AD blic autho ritv ron rlv exercised has failed to exercrse o l, or a rule, or onferr u on a oolicv decision of the Governm nt or has exercised n irrelevant such dis c f et con sideration, ron m ala fide. or a ! u

101. In all such cases, the High Court mu:;i issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel rerformance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a publi< tuthority."

20. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqm ent dated 1O .o6.201 3 passed in W.A.Nos.782 o1' 201 O and 854 ot 2OL2 while uoholdinq the J udqme tda ,d O8.O9.2O1O 27 SN, J wp 24928 2022 oassed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2oo7 and c.c.No.48 0f 2008 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 a ppella nt-Corporation also issued various office orders/circu lars dated 20.t2,L989, 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 lablour 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 t is Court in its Judqment in W.P,No.27217 of 2OL7 dated L9.O9.2()17 Dassed reDorted 1n 2O18(2)ALD oao 282 at para 16 and Dara 18 observed as under:- " 16- It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is 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 22.4.1994, 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 a bso rptio n/reg u la rization oF those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in thjs regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. 28 SN, J w_24928]022 The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscioLt: of various State enactments such as Act 2 of t994 and execut \ e orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, while giv ng directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's : rse (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour o' .he States where State enactments banning reg u la rization/, )sorption exist. Thereiore, Act 2 of 1994 1OO a nd G,O. M:; No.21 22.4.1994, do not whittle down the I ridth and the case (srl rra), does not iudq ment lower the traiectorv of the directions - issued bv the Supreme Court in Para 53 of ats iudomerJ in Uma Devi's a). It is, therefore not Derrr issible for the 1994 and G.O. 2.4.1994. to denv l oularization to satisfied the ! loment in Uma resDondents to take shelter under Act 2 ( Ms. No.212, dated h Devi's case (suora). in Maniula Bashini'. who h ve r n down in P No,53 ! s

18. For the aforementroned reasons, order, lated 27,6.2017, in OA No.1442 of 2Of4, on the file of the Tr t unal is set aside and the writ oetition is allowed with the I lirection to the resoondents to consider reqularisation of the servaces of the Detitioners aqainst the existinq va(; ncies of Work Inspectors and apooint them subiect to_:heir satisfying the criteria la id down in Para No,53 of ! re judoment in Uma Devi's case (su ra ). This Drocess mr !.! t be completed within two months from the date of rec('. ot of a copv of this order. "

22. The Division Bench of this Court in- its Judoment dated 21.04.2020 passed in I.A.Nos.L of 2Oi O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23O57 ol 2OL9 reported in 20 ? 0(4)ALD paoe 379 at Daras 45, 48 and para 50 observed a s under:- "45. There is no drspute that petitioners havr: been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in aln(st (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimL r r time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuousl/ working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till ( ate. 48. It is not know n why the 1st resr! ndent has not followed the decision in Uma Devi's cE se (slpra ), as 29 SN. J vtp _2492E _2.022 .rf nraiiriinrr explained in M.L. Kesari's case (supra) and undertaken a .rlra-firtra ayar,.ica lict nf dailw rrrarrp emDlovees who had lirorked for more than ten (10) vears wathout the intervention of the Courts and Tribunals as on 10.4.2006 and subiect them to a orocess verafication as to whether thev are workinq aqainst vacant Dosts and possess requisite oualifications for the posts, and if so. reo ularize t ct r servtces

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the lst 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 21 of the Constitution of India; tbC respondents are directed to reoularize on one-time basis petitioners' services from the date each of the petitioners ramnlala l al vaarc ilr6 ent- But- thev shall not be t tnt aI dates of thetr aDDoln nt t aA to an m rtrtataav rali C Tha cai;l avar.z.ica chrll ha done within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of coDv of the order." fi^m I .r

23. This Court ooanes that in the Dresent case, the resDondents failed to discha roe their dutv in examaninq the reouest of the petitioner for reoularization of Detataoner's services , who is workinq as ful time sweeoer nd further to consad em orar tf h etitaone r in t o l2ci arrrafa nacl af frr il t tm sweeDer as reqular one for orade Dav with oeriodical increment revis ll ourooses bv orantinq last from tIme to time from the date of aDDo ntment of the oetitioner, in accord a nce to law. 30 SN, J wp24928)022

24. Th s Co rt oDanes that Detitioner is, entitled for case for qra nt o' the rel ief as view of the atioL ofp itio ner s IOn n Pe Wr rvati ons of the ADex Cou rt (referred to and extr Divisi on Be nch of this Court in the Judqme in varao u s iudoments acted above ) and thr: view of the s referred to and extracted ab ve.

25. Takan q into con s!derati n:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances c F the case' b) The subrnissions made by the tea 'ned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and le;r'ned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respond(:r rt Nos'4 & 5 c) The observations of the Apex Court ir the various judgments (referred to and extracted abcr e) and again enlisted below: i)(2o2o) l scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Pase 3e6 (iii) 2o2s rNSC 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) l Scc 148 (vi) 2O1o(9)scc247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC L797 3l SN, J wJ4928]022 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2oL4) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2o06) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, page234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2020(a)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.7B2 oJ 2O1O and g54 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dated O8.O9.2O1O passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OOg (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated L9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.p.No.272t7 ot 2O17 (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.23O57 of 20tg (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. The Writ Peti ton ts allowed, the oetitioner is d to out-forth the claim of the Detitaon er for 32 SN, J u/p _2492a 2022 oetitioner's servlces and rlso th claim requl rization of the Detitioner to treat the tem ra rv ;r :rvtces of the Detitaon er in the last orade Dost of contino( rt Swe Der as reqular one for all DurDoses bv qra ntino I rst orade pav with Deraodical increments revised from tinr : to tim the d te of aDooi tment of the Detiti )ner and all conseq uential benefits, dulv enclosino all the relevant documents in suppo rt of Detitioner's case ; s put-forth in m the Dresent writ petition, within a period ofl)ne (O1) week from t e date of receiot of coov of the rrder and resDon ents shall e amine and consider the s me tn f natural accordance to law, in conformitv with princi ll iustice bv orovidinq an o Doortu n itv of oers e na! hea rino to th€ petitioner, in terms of orders Dassed L,l the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case reoorted in 2OO6 ,) sCc Paqe 1, the iudqment Dassed in W.P. o.24377 I r 2OO7 dated 08.09.20 1O reoorted in 2011 (1 ) ALD. Pa< e 234 and as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O d ated 1t.06.2013 and also as oer Division ench Jud oment of tl s Court dated I L9.O9.2OL7 oassed in W.P.No.272l7 ol 2Crl 17 reported in 2018(2)ALD Daoe 2a 2 and also the I) vision Bench 33 SN, J wp]4928_2022 Iudo ent of this Court dated 21.O4.2O2O oa I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 in W.P.No.23O57 f 2019 n2 2 L fin ali+r, wlt h , rtaiaat doffo e f 7 w /Oy'.\ reroalzc J m iha drla t f ration h of this r ns and h the Aoex Court in the variou s iudoments (refer to and extracted above), and in Darticular, oara No. 3 of the iudqment of the Apex Court in the case of State of rn,)rb st nt I lttt a Devi a tl Att n comm n i..la +Jra ioner. H w v r t re sh I order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. Sd/.A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR TANT REGI //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER One Fair CoPY to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTICE SU (For Her LadyshiPs Kind Perusal) P INANDA To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayathral Department' Telangana Secretariat' Hyderabad, State of Telangana

2. The Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department' Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana'

3.TheDistrictCollectorandChairmanofSelectionCommitteeandMinimum - Wages Committee, Wanaparthy District

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Wanap rrthy District' 5. The Mandal Parishad Development Otficer' Atmakur vlandal, Wanaparthy District. 6. 11 LR Copies 7. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, . ustice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

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

9. One CC to SRI CH.GANESH, Advocate IOPUC] 10.One CC tO SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, SC FOR. G ZPP, [,,IPP, GPPS [oPUCl 1'l .Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RA.J RURAL Dt:'/' High Courl for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

12.Two CCs to GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING, High 1)ourt for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

13.Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the l'tate of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

14. Two CD Copies BSR PMK HIGH COURT DATED: 1810712025 CC TODAY rii-,: , TAIA ?r, l\l 2d1i k c ._) I * r).-,. I --. i1\. ',,' ORDER WP.No.24928 ot 2022 ) I , I ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS