Writ Petition No. 25433 of 2022 · The High Court · 2025

G.O.lvls.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.112 dated

23.07.L997 and similarly situated employees appointed after 1985 were regularized, the services of the petitioner have not been regularized. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD:- A.T he counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 4th resoond ent and the relevant Dara Nos.7, 8, 1O & 11 are extra cted hereunder:-

7. It is submitted, at the outset, in reply to the averment that in order to claim benefits from the Minimum Wages Act and Equal Pay for Equal Work laws, the petitioner must have been appointed in accordance with the rules. When the government issues special orders regarding salaries that should be given only in accordance with these orders. Whenever the government issues specific orders through the Finance department, like G.O.Ms.No.1B0 Fin dt. 17.10.2016 the salaries have to be given accordingly. Petitioner salaries are being given as per these orders and no authorization is given to pay more. In the instant case, the petitioner has not recruited as per the rules, therefore, 6 S\,J the question of paying under the Minimurn , well as Equal Pay for Equal Work in terms Acts, does not arise. Hence, no statutory contention, and as such, the citations ref,: - aFfidavit and prayer do not support to tt Therefore, this is enough to dismiss the W.P. i B. It is submitled that Prem Sing's case - computation of the period of work charcl(l purpose of qualifying service for pension. petitioner relying upon this judgement, hr: definitely been appointed under establishment. The petitioner never produc{l,l his appointment order as evidence that he - under work charged establishment. Hence, tr is not applicable to the relief sought by him. /ages Act as :f the a bove []rce in th is €rd to in the €r petitioner. r limini. :lates to the I service for In case the would have vork-charged appointment rd appointed r; judgement :nce of due rt case, the :r the orders 180 Fin dt. ek relief for rreme Court r him. Hence (;ou rt is not

10. Avatar Chand Case it relates to difl'e r balance in payment of wages. In the inst. petitioner is taking wages Rs.4000/- PM as : of the Finance Department vide G.O.Ms.Nc,. 1,7.t0.2076, therefore, petitioner cannot s( 1007o compensation as per the above li I Judgment, as there was no balance to pay - the above said judgment of the Supreme applicable to him and is liable to be denied. 11. It is submitted that when the p,:::roner seeks regularization the services must have fulfilled the conditions prescribed in Government Orders eferred to in the above paragraphs. Since his appointmer I is not made in accordance with the rules and even he was appointed in 1979 as such he has not completed the minirr r,rm period of ten years of service as on the cut-off date. Hr rce he is not liable to be absorbed.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of tt e petitioner submits that in view of the fact that thr petitioner I 7 SN,J completed more than 40 years of service as on the date of filing of the present Writ Petition, the respondents may be directed to consider the request of the petitioner for absorption into regular cadre w.e.f. the date of the petitioner's appointment (i.e., since the year 1979) in respondent-corporation.

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent (referred to and extracted above) submits that the petitioner was appointed as a contingent sweeper on O9.O1.1979 at P.S, Nelamari, Munagala Mandal, Siddipet Dastrict, T.S., and as such the petitioner did not complete the minimum period of 5/1O years as on

25.11.1993 and therefore, the claim of the petitioner for absorption into regular cadre cannot be considered. 7 rned S behalf of th resoonde t Nos.4 and 5 sub its that the orieva nce of the nsel a +r n A Detitioner as Dut-forth in the present Writ Petition had not been addressed to the respondents herein as on date and 8 SN.J therefore, the petitioner cannot comolain ina! tion on the part of respondents herein in considerinq the J l]e-Yal!-ec-gf the petitioner and hence, the relief as prave( for bv the Detitioner in the Dresent Wit oetition cannol: be qranted and the petitioner may be directed to p r t-forth the petitioner's qrievance as put-forth in the J! 'esent Writ Petitron by way of a detailed representa I ion to the respmdents herein and upon receipt ,r t the said reoresentation, the respondents would consij[ 1r the same in accordan ce to law within a reasonable Deri( d.

8. Learned cotlnsel appearinq on behalf of t i' e petitioner does not dis D ute the said submission made brr the learned Standinq Counsel appearinq on behalf of ther respondent Nos.4 and 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-

9. Th A x m orteci in ( 2020) 1 SCC (L&S) in "Prem Sinqh v State of Uttar I radesh and others", at oara 36 held as under: "36. There are some of the employees wh,) ttave not been regularized in spite of having rendered tl'( services 9 SN.J for 30-40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the servlces be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entilled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the reoular rvices rendered bv them establishment and the rioht from the dav thev ntered the work-charoed aci: n for ouroose of oension." as ualif tn lrlich:nant eh lt

10. The Aoex Court in the case of "Dharwad District PWD Literate Dailv Waoe Emolove es Association Vs. State of Karnataka" reDorted in 199O 2 ) scc Paoe 395 laid h State should not kee a temDorarv or adhoc servace for lono oeriod and have to treat such Derso ns as reoular one.

11. Para No.53 of the of the iudoment of the Aoex Court in the "State of Karnataka andothers Vs Umadevi", dated l0

10.04.2006 reported in (2006) 4 s c1 ! hereund r S\-J extracted 1 67 ara a ow r "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There rray-bc_@scs where irreoular aopointments (not i eoal ;I )oointme nts) lained in S.V scR 128 R.N. Naniunda oa t L97 (1) SCc 40,) nd B.N. Naoa aian [ 1 979 (4) SC C 5O7l and referred .a-]-o-paIi!lr of dulv o ualified oersons in dul v san( ioned vaca nt Dosts mioht have been made and the err r..l ,lovees have contin u without the intervention of orders of the courts or of ! !bunals. The o ues ion of r qu la rization of the serv s of such employees may have to be considered on _ in th n rt liqht of the orincioles settled bv this Cour= in the cases abovereferred to and in the lioht of this iu41 nent l_o$a! the State Gov ents an rE their instrumentali ties sho ld take steDs to 'eoular tze as one-time measure, the servrces of su I trre u la rlv a ADDOi nted, who ave worked for ten vears o !rsci!_d!.ly sanctioned oosts but n rders of the courts or of tri bunals a d should furthe ensu re that reqular recruitm ents are -hasc-la-qa_nt sa nct ioned oosts that reouire to be filled uD, tn cases where temoo ra emol ees or da wao e rs are bein q now emoloved. The oroces must be et in t within xt, the Un on of Indi under cov rof ndertake to fi r ! Lt_ o : .- L2. The udqment of the ADex Court ated 2 .12.2024 reDo rted in 024 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 in "Jaqr 1 2 Anita and others v Union of Ind la an d othe rs and I he relevant Dara r h Nos.12 L3, 24, 26, 27 and 28 are extracted he reu nd er3 "12.- Despite being labelled as .,par.: time workers," the appellants performed I hese I SN,] 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. 13, The claim bv the resoondents that these were not reou lar DOsts lacks merit, as the natu re of the woltk performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioninq of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which etfectively 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 t2 S\'-.J L such 1'kers hiqh liqh ts the iudiciarv's role in rectifvinc miscl assifications and ensurino thatw receive fa ir treat ment. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra ) s )ught to curtail the practice of backdoor entries ano e rsure appojntments adhered to constitutional princip es it is regrettable that its principles are often misintr:rp reted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long:,r employees. This judgment aimed to distir between "illegal" and "irregular,, a ppoint I ents- t cateoor icallv he ld that em I in irrr lovees a DDo i ntments, who were enoaqe _ duly sancti oned oos and had served cont n uour more tha n ten vears should be cons ider< 1 I for reqularization as a one-time measure. Ho I ever, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subl:rted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiicrirn r ately reject the claims of employees, even in case:; r,lrere their appointments are not illegal, but merell la ck adherence to procedural formalities. Govetrr departments often cite the judgment in Umz Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regular; 3tion exists for temporary employees, overlookin; judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases i h ere reg ularizatron is appropriate. This sel,1 :tive do ment's sDtrjl, and aDo lication distorts l rinst l able A( emol ovees who have rende red indisDer services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our op r i is imperative for government departments to €. example in providing fair and stable employr Engaging workers on a temporary basis for ext€ periods, especially when their roles are integral _ organization's functioning, not only contra\ international labour standards but also exposes organization to legal challenges and underrr employee morale. By ensuring fair emptoy I practices, government institutions can redui( burde_n of unnecessary litigation, promot(! sacurity, and uphold the principles oi justicr: fairness that they are meant to embody. approach aligns with international standard:; r r-t, it ) r-'n t. r ded 3nes .iob f his the iu lztn(J r l3 SN,J 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 drscussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination

27.tO.2018 are quashed ; orders dated . The aooellants shall be taken back on d tv forthwith and th rr servrces reoularised forthwith. However, the t h shall not b n f n ark urarras for t worked for riod the entitled to continuitv of would b services f r the said oeriod an the same be counted for t eir oost- retiral benefits,"

13. The Judqment of the Aoex Court dated 31.01.202s re Dorted in 2025 INSC 144 in "SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD" in particular, the r t para Nos.1 5 to 19 are extracted here u nder: h A ell n * 15. v rendered their services over several vears, continuousI sometimes sD nnino more than a decade. Even if certain r' failure to fur ish such records-deso ite directions to do so-allow s an adverse inference under well-established labour iuris ian labour law stronqlv Drudence. Ind uced in f olls w r Em lo t4 SN,J disfavors DerDetual dailv-waoe or _ _contractual enqaqements in circumstances where 1 :l e work is ermanent in nature. M rall --\ Lsrkc-rs-lr{h-q fulfil onqoinq municipal requirements ve.r after vear cannot be dismissed summarilv as dispensable. oarticularlv in the absence of a qenuirrr contractor aqreement. At this juncture, it would be apprcg - ate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary' employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this : )rrt in Jaggo v. Union of India in the followlng paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse of temporar\ contracts, as exemplified in this case, ref r systemic issue that adversely atfects worl ( job security. In the private sector. the - economy has led to an increase in precario - arrangements, often characterized by lack c security, and fair treatment. Such practi: criticized for exploiting workers and und€ standards. Government institutions, € r upholding the principles of fairness and j -r even greater responsibility to avoid su: employment practices. When public sector € in misuse of temporary contracts, it not or detrimental trends observed in the gig eco sets a concerning precedent that can eroc€ govern menta I operations. r employment cts a broader rs'rights and ;,: of the g ig ; employment " benefits, job l:s have been rining la bour trusted with ;tice, bear an r exploitative rtities engage y mirrors the romy but a lso )ublic trust in

25. It is a disconcerting reality that tempor. particu la rly in government institution:;, multifaceted forms of exploitation. While ti purpose of temporary contracts may I address short-term or seasonal needs increasingly become a mechanism to 202,1 S 3826 evade long-term obligations owed These practices manifest in several ways: -y employees, often face : foundational rve been to they have CC Online SC c employees. emDorarv" Labels: a Employees enqaqed for work that is essential, rr currinq, and inteqral to the f nctioninq of an in;titution are i rctual," even lab lled as ' m r t5 SN,J r ificati when their roles mirror those of reo qla r emo lovees. €rr ch mi rs of +ha securitv. and benefits teqular emol ovees are entitled to, des e Derfo q identic Itasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and 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 eq ually s ig n ifica nt. . 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 effo rt to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. o Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits 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 lnability 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 l6 SN,J regularization, it failed to afford them continuit! 3f service or meaningful back wages commensuTate with the degree of statuiory vloizt c,n evident on record.

17. In light ot these considerations. tlr r Employer's discontinuation of the Appeilant Workmen stanl; ir violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is {r tablished that their services were terminated without adhering c, Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 rnd that thev were enqaqed in essential, Derennial I rties wo rkers cannot be releoated to DerDetual u ncertaintv. While cqncerns of municipal budqet and con pliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Emplover of statutorv o rliqations or neoate eouitable entitlements. Indeed. bureaucratic limitations cannot trLtmp the leqitima:, r riqhts in de facto men who have I n reoular roles for an extended Der od 18, The imouoned order of the Hioh Court. conf ine the A enoaoement withou waoes. is heretrv set aside with the followin clirections: - -alhe-sxEcnt ! q dailv-waqe continuitv or me:rr,inqful back ell n w r l I. The discontinuation of the Appellzrr services, eFfected without compliance with Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disput€ declared illegal. All orders or communicati: their services are quashed. In consequenc3 Workmen shall be treated as continuing i the date of their termination, for all purl; seniority and continuity in service. s t Workmen's ir:ction 6E and Act, 1947, is rs terminating the Appellant service from s;es, including 11 SN,J II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire period of absence (from the date of termination u ntil actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuitv of service and all consequen ial benefits. such as t romoti if an n n III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 500/o of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. IT f n.l r tn IV. The Resoondent Emol ver is directed to initiate nrr tho ix months frorn t he date ntn ro A t)Dellant Workmen w hin s c n n trans ar fzrr rarl,lrrizi that th he fa have oerformed oerennial municioal duties akin to permanent Dosts. In assessino reoularization, the Emolover shall not im Dose educational or orocedural criteria retroactivelv if reouirements were never aoolied to the AoDellant Workmen or to similarlv situated reoula remolovees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are reouired, the ResDondent Emolover shall exoedite all necessarv administrative orocesses to ensure these lonqtime s are not n waqes contrarv to statutorv and eouitable 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." L4. The Aoex Co rt rna I ent reoort ln (20L71 | Suoreme Court Case s1 48. ln "State of Pu n Iab and others 18 SN,J vs Jaoiit Sin o h and others" at Paras 54 and il; sub-paras (1)(2)(3). of the said udqment observed as ur der: I "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, h,t i upon the above controversy had concluded, ., employees were not entitled to the minimum of ii scale, merely for the reason, that the activitie:: daily-wagers and regular employees were similat. however, made tv,/o exceptions. Temporary emD'L in either of the two exceptions, were held entit ( the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular : exceptions recorded by the full bench of the Hi1 impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:- adjudicating = .tt temporary : regular pay- carried on by t he full bench 'y ees, who fell 1to wages at rployees. The t Court in the fees are not tal appointee t,cointed after t fairness and e: candidates, tay scale from "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contraci against the regular sanctioned posts, it . undergoing a selection process based u,c t equality of opportunity to all other eliLltt shall be entitled to minimum of the regul,zi the date of engagement. (2) But if dailv waoers. ad hoc c't contractual 'qst reqular sanctioned Dosts and their service: are availed the Sfate continuouslv. with notional breaks, 'a sufficient Government or its instru mentalities f lona oeriod i.e. for 70 vears. such da waqers, ad hoc or contractual aooointees shall entitled to minimum of the reoular oav scale _ without any allowanc es on the assumDtion tt 1r_t____welk__-o! perennial nature is available and havil I worked for such lono period of time, an equil,'ble risht is created io such catesorv of persons. ','.teir claim for redula rization if nv. mav have to b t considered ,ss t le scheme. aratel ? i1 -I L I, b .1 (3) In the event, a claim is made for mintr after more than three years and fiv completion of 10 years of continuous A'( wager, ad hoc or contractual employee sha arrears for a period of three years and twc tlm pay scale > months of rking, a daily be entitled to 1onths." t9 SN,J

15. The iu dq ment of the Aoex Court reoorted in 2010(9) scc 247 between: "State of Karnataka and others v M.L.Kesari and others in oarticula r Daras 4 to 9 ads as u nder: 2006 G) SCC 1). In

4. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered on 10.4.2006 ( reoorted in that case, a Constituti on Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules retating to appointment did not confer any right 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 inter-fere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instru menta lities, 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 daity-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 11 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : 967 SCR I n B "53. One asDect n eeds to be clarified. There mav be cases where irreoular aDDointments (not illeqal ADI'O intments) as exDlained in S.V. Na va naDDa 7 409 dul sa R.N. Nan un a ara an 7 7 cc o7 and referred to in oara 75 above- of dulv aualified vta; nt os h=tta been made and the emolovees have continued to vears or more but without the work for intervention of orders of the co urts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the senrices of em I' IanaA ntiah; e erits in Court in the f the es se cases abovereferred to an d in the lioht 20 SN,J Govern ments the State of this iu ment. In that context. _ le Union of and their India, instru mentalities should take stel,s t( eqularize as a one-time measure, the services of s'r :h irreqularlv apoointed, who have worked for ten_t ?aIS--9lJIloF in dulv sanctioned posts but not urier cover of orders of the co rts or of tribuna,: and should further ensure that reqular rect t itments are undertaken to fill those vacant sart tioned Dosts that reouire to be filled uo, in :ases where 's are beinq tem Dorarv emplovees or dailv waq t in motion now en nl o wctl The Droce-ss m ust he within six months from this date. ..,. = "5. It is evident from the above that there to the general principles against 'regularizatioil Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled . s an exception ?nunciated in (i) The employee concerned should have worke,c more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit the interim order of any court or tribunal. In (l State Government or its instrumentality shoul,j the employee and continued him in service \ continuously for more than ten years. c,r 10 years or t protection of t=r words, the ztve employed c lu ntarily and (ii) The appointment of such employee shoutc even if irregular. Where the appointments ar= continued against sanctioned posts or wht:rt appointed do not possess the prescribed minim,r 1 the appointments will be considered to be illega,. person employed possessed the prescribed c7t,, was wcrking against sanctioned posts, but h,ed without undergoing the process of open coml)ci such appointments are considered to be irregul,tr. tot be illegal, not made or the persons Tualificar.ions, tlut where the l;fications and tteen selected tive selection, fiii) Umadevi casts a dutv uDon tl concerned Governme tor tnstrumenta tv, to ta sfe sto reoularize the seruices of those irreoula r aooojnted emolovees who had served for more th q--!eo--yeErE without the benefit or orotection of anv int orders of cou rts or tribunals. as a one-tim measl'e. Umadevi, at such one-time measure mt :t be set in directed I motion wt 'hin six months from the date o its decision ( ren dered on 7O.4. 2OO6 l. . j ).1 SN,J

6. The term one-time measure' has to be understood tn its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the 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 serr'ices.

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad - hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instru menta lities did not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instru mentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in 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/ad hoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of 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 lJmadevi, 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. i6

8. fhe obiect behind the said direction in oara 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure that those who ,,,va n,,? n without the D tribunals. be rendered. are considered for reaulariza tection of anv interim orders of courts or the date of decision in Umadevi was n in view of a t etttzfa nd is to ens lities artme ts / instrumen te Ih an n s 22 SN,J plaqltlce of emDlo nq Dersons on d,t lv-wa oe / ad- hoc/ca ual for lon Deriods and then Deriodicall v reoularize them on the oroun d that thev ht,' e served for more than ten vears. therebv defeatinq the < cnstitution or sta utorv Dtovtsrons relatino to rec,- 'jtment and aDDointm ent, The true effect of the di.rect. t n is that all Dersons who ha ve worked for more than tet vears as on 70.4.20 OG (the date f decision in Umadev out the Drotection of anv interim order of anv courL! L tribunal , no the reou ite qut ,t lication, are vacant Dosts. Doss entitled to be considered for reqularization, _ fhe fact that the emolover has not undert,'aken such exerctse o reaula rization within six months of thct -decision in Umadevi or that such exerctse wa under t, ken onl n reoard to a limite few, will not di 5lntitle such s. the rioht to be considered for emD o .qularizati on in terms of the above directions in Umadevi , sa one-time measure. ! I,

9. These appeals have been pending for more : an four years after the decision in umadevi. The Appellant (i t1 panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of tpondents of regularization within six months of the decisior, r' lJmadevi or thereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has oi,.cted that the cases of respondents should be considered in n..ordance ,^tith law. The only further direction that needs be gtt 6n, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gacte ( shoultl now undertake an exercise within six months, a ge; :-al one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether thetr are any daily wage/ca su al/ad - hoc employees serving the Zila p. nchayat and if so whether such employees (inctuding the res. t,tdents) fulfi the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Llmad,: i. If they fulfitt them, their services have to be regularized. If st:h an exercis€ has already been undertaken by ignoring or o,T t ting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency t these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in ontinuation of the said one time exercise within three months. I is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the -, quirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years ;,zrvice do not possess the educational qualifications prescribeo cr the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be :onsidered for 23 SN,J regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.

16. The Judoment of the Aoex Court dated 19.O

8.2025 passed in Civil ADDeal No.85 58 of 2O18 reDorted in 2025 scc ONLINE SC 1735 in "Dharam Sinoh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another". in oarti cular, the retev nt para Nos.L3, L7.18. 19 and 20 are extracted here u nder: "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 may 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 extraction of regular Iabour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial 74 SN-,J stringency certainly has a place in public pol r y, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, re ; son and the duty to organise work on lawful lines.

18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted 1 hocism" thrives where administration is opz r State Departments must keep and produce establishment registers, muster rolls and c,r 1 arrangements, and they must explain, with e why they prefer precarious engagern(,r sanctioned posts where the work is per,l "constraint" is invoked, the record should :;lr alternatives were considered, why similar 1 workers were treated differently, and how t.lrr course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 Constitution of India. Sensitivity to ther consequences of prolonged insecurity sentimentalrty. It is a constitutional discit,l should inform every decision affecting those r public offices running. rat "ad- ue. The I ccu rate ;curcing vidence, t over rr ia l. If ;,lu what placed ch ose n of the is not rre that l-o keep "19. Having regard to the long, undisputed :;:rvice of the appellants, the admitted perennial natur: ()f their duties, and the material indicating vacar( r:s and comparator regularisations, we issue the :llowing directions: i. Regularization and creation of Supernr posts: All appellants shall stand regularized \r'i from 24.04.2002, the date on which the H r directed a fresh recommendation by the Cor and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioni for the appellants. For this purpose; the Stat(r successor establishment (U.p. Education Selection Commission) shall create supenr merary :h effect I Court m issio n rg posts and the lervices r-nera ry 25 SN.J posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-lV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or 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 above. 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 from 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 aooellants: Anv aooella nt who has d shall be oranted reo ula rization alreadv reti ate o a t rFA Tq un der .2OO2 until fixation SUDE ra n nua inn for na 4 26 SN,J clause (ii). and recalculation of pension, I fAlgjly and other terminal dues. The revised pent A n_AId terminal dues shall be paid within three_ ! lnths of this l udqment. iv. Dece sed aoDellants : In the (: tse of Aooellant No.5 and anv other appellant ,4 ho has died durino Dendencv, his/her - leqal reo resentatives on record shall bep id the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date <l -dCath, too ether with all term ina I / reti ra I - _ dues reca lcu Iated consist entlv with cl use (il , -w-tthi!! three months of this ludqment. v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Sr H igher Education Department, Governmenl: Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.p. t: Services Selection Commission or the . competent authority, shall file an affi I compliance before this Court within four mont^ Judgment. cretary, r1'Uttar uca tio n r:va lent l vit of ; of this

20. We have framed these rl -ections comprehensively because, case after case, () clers of this Court in such matters have been met wi h fr€sh tech n ica lities, rolling " reconsiderations, ' administrative drift which further prolo I 1s the insecurity for those who have already labc r red for "i 27 sN.l years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that lustice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter 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. " L7. In the iudo ent of the Aoex Court in "Nihal Sinoh and others v. te of Puniab" reoorted tn 2013) 14 SCC ( 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Offacers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their 28 SN,J services were made available. It held that l:l e mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did nol render the appellants 'ernployees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State ancl disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that tlr : creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadrr: is a matter exclusively within the authority of the Stat:r ,, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but crlse to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It alsl refu ed to accept the defence that there were no sanr : :ioned posts and so there was iustification for the St:r e to utilise se rvices of laroe number of oeoole li ke the : roella ts for decade . It held that "sanctioned D sts do r ot fall from heaven" and that the State has t creatrr them bya t_ conscious choice on the basi s of som rationE asses sment '.'] of need. Referrino to Umadevi, it held that tll 3 ADD llants before them were not arbitrarilv chosen, their in itia I aDDOtn ment was not an'irreoular'a Dointm 1 nt as it had been made in accordan ce with the statuto 1t procedure r I the State rl d under heP 1 61 29 SN,J cannot be heard to sav that they are not entitled to be absorbed into the services of the State on oermanent basis as, accordinq to it, their aooointments were ourelv temDorarv and not aqainst nv sanct oned oosts created bv the State. It was held that the iudoment in Umadevi cannot become a licence for exoloitation bv the State and its instrumentalities and neither the Government of Puniab nor those oublic sect r Banks can continue such a oractice inconsistent with their obliqatio n to function in accordance with the Constitution.

18. The iu ent of the Apex Court reported in 2O15 SCC Online SC L797 betwee "B.Srinivalusu and others v Nellore Municioal CorDoratio n Reo.bv its Commissioner, Nellore District, Andhra Prad esh and others", in oarticular aras 7 and n (7) We find it difficult to acceDt the reasonino adooted bv the Hiah Court. The rioht of the aopellants to seek reoularization flows from the G.O No.212 dated 22.4.1994. The aDDellant have been in service of the first resDondent not onlv Drior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subsequent to the issue of G.O. tilL]tpelEy, 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. 30 :JN,J B. In the circumstances, refusing the beneftt of the above mentione,J G.O. on the ground that the appella) s approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not j,t.tified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying tt: order under appeal by directing that the appellants' services )e regularjsed with effect from the date of their completing L teir five year continuous service as was laid down by this Cc )rt in District Collector/Cha irperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & )rs. 2009 (B) SCC 4BO.

19. In "Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar" reoor SCC 265, the Suorem e Court held that t :d (2015 )8 'T r : objective behind the exception carved out in this case vr, rs to permit regularisation of such appointment, which it.e irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointmentr; which are irregular but not illegal, and to en su re - securitv of emDlovment of those Dersons who had serv( d the State Gover nment and their instrumentalit ies for rr{ ,re than ten orki n q x29 vea rs. tew e:( )ress din In that case. molovee was This dectston aDDro ves earlier t M .L.Kesari extracted above.

20. In State of "larkh and v Kamal Prasad" rePorted in (2014) 7 SCC 223. similar view was tal en bv the SuDrem e Court and it was held as follows: "47.... In view of the cateooric, I findino r2'-fact on the relevant contentious issue that the respond,? lt emDlo vees have continued in th ,r serv ore i:,,an 7 O vears 3l SN,J continuouslv therefore, the leqal DrinciDle laid down bv this Court in Umadevi case (State of Karna ka v Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 7 : 2OO6 SCC (L&9 73) at Dara 53 souarelv aDNlies to the nrc<enf cases, The Divtston Bench of the rishtlv held that the respondent Hiqh Court has em Dlo vees ere entifled for the relie the s me c2 nof he interfered with bv this Court." n a 2L. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed an W.P.No.27602 of 2O19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS 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 ot 2O23 dated 10.1O.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLP No.32847 ol 2024. 22, The iudoment of the ADex Court in "Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others" in AIR 2O2O Su m oarticular para Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows: "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Afticle 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but f h cr rah now r w haFa .l r rh,- ti/ir rrrd Government or a oublic auth oritv has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised discretion conferred uoon it bv a statute. or a rule, or a oolic decision of the Government or has exercised such di scretion mala fide, or on i rreleva nt considetatiqn- f.r aYar-. 32 SN.J

101. In all such cases, the High Court must r: sue a wrlt of mandamus and give directrons to compel perlr -mance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion r cnferred upon the Govern ment or a public authority. " I

23. Su b ect to the exceotions contained in Clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 13 of the Rules a temporal y emDlovee shall further sati sfv theco n diri on sti ulate(l under Rule D s 14 of the Rules for untinq his temDorarv service for Densionarv benefits. Rules 13 and 14 of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pen sion Rules, 1980 de:r s with the o ua lifvlno service of a temDorarv emDlo 3e for the I DUTDOSe Of OaVment Of Dension which reads ar; under:- "73. Commencement of oualifvino _ servtce: Subiect to the provisions of the rules, r 7 talifvino service of a Government servant shall c Qmmence from the date he takes charoe of the oost to-vhich he rst aDDointed either substantivelv o' in an ,s officiatinq or temDorarv caoacitv: Provided that - (a) in the case of a Government servant in Class IV serttice or post who held a lien or a suspendec' tien on a permanent persionable post prior to the 17th ,\ )vember, 196O, service rendered before attaining the age tl'sixteen ( 16) years shall not count for any purpose; and (b) in the case of a Government servant r ocovered by clause (a), serwice rendered before attaining t t-- age of eighteen (1e) years shall not count, ex:lzpt for com pensa tio n g ra tu i ty. 33 SN,J

14. Conditions subject to which service oualifies: (1) The service of a Government servant shall not qualifu duties are and 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."

24. Thi s Court onines that in the resent ca se- th e D resDondents failed to discha rqe their dutv in examininq the reouest of the Det tioner for reqularization of Detitioner's services in the cadre of SweeDer in accordance to law and to tr at the temDorarv services of ht e netit oner in the last rade Dost of SweeDer as reoular o one for all ou rDoses b rantino last qrade oav with periodica! increment revised from time to time from the date of aoDointment of the petitioner.

25. This Court ooines that petitioner is entitled for consideration of Detitioner's case for qrant of the relief as .l ra ed for in the resent Writ P observations of the Aoex Court in various iudoments (referred to and extracted above). n R 34 SN.J

26. This Court opines that the request of tlr: petitioner for reqularization of petitioner services canno': be reiected on the qround that the petitioner had not comp[et€d minimum period of 1O vears as on 25.11.1993 'houqh, it is stated at paraqraph No.7 of the counter affidi vit filed on behalf of the 4th respondent that oetitioner mj1 ,- have been aooointed in the ear 1986 and admittedl i s borne on record, oetitioner herein completed 1O vears ; f_ service as on the date of filinq of the present Writ Petitio r and as per the observations of the Apex Court in the casg of State of Puniab and Others Vs. Jaqiit Sinqh and Other ir particular at oara No 54 and its sub-Daras (1)(2) and l-, ;) (referred to and extracted above) and as per the obsr.rvations in the various iudqments of the Apex Court(ref3 :red to and extracted above), the petitioner herein is _:.ntitlcd_ter eonsideration of petitioner's case llor requ Li rrization of petitioner's services and for consideration ol_ petitioner's request to treat the temoorarv services of the I 'etitioner in the last qrade oost of Sweeoer as reqular one for all Oujposes for qrant of last qrade Dav wi!t eriod ica 35 SN,J increments revised from tim e to time from the date of apDointment of the petationer.

27. Takinq into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5, c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: (i)(2o2o) l scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 201o(9) scC 247 (vii) (2013) 14SCC 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Ontine SC L797 (ix) (2o1s) I scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 36 SN.J (xiii) (20o6) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1735 The Writ Petition is allowed, since it is case of the petitioner that the petitione r discharging his duties as Contingent Sweept year L979 in P.S. Nelamari, Munagala Man,J the specific had been r since the rl, Siddipet District, T.S., and is rendering the same ser date, the petitioner is directed to submil rices as on a detailed representation to the respondents herein putti rg-forth the grievance of the petitioner as put-forth in the 1 resent Writ Petition seeking to consider and treat the temporary services rendered by the petitioner in last gr rde post of sweeper as regular one from the date of petitir appointment to till date as full time Swer: ner's initial rer in P.S. Nelamari, Munagala Mandal, Siddipet Distrir: further to duly consider the request of the p,r extending the last grade pay benefits wil:l , T.S., and rtitioner for rperiodical increments from time to tame w.e.f. O9.O1.197 ! t to till date with arrears and upon the respondents receiv representation of the petitioner/ the resp,l directed to consider the same and pass ng the said ldents are rppropriate )l SN,J reasoned speaking orders in accordance to law, withan a period of four (04) weeks thereafter, in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, duly taking into consideration the observations and the law Iaid down by the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/.U. SUDHA TANT REGISTRAR S S //TRUE COPY' One fair copy to THE HON,BLE SRt JUSTTCE (For Her Lordship,s Kind per u ECTION OFFICER R PALLI NANDA #i,iJLiYsL:.?::?Ellrrf"?ir'ate or reIansana Education Department, I3ii,i[:'f,:'rt":?:?:?,?i Iffi re r an s a n a Fi n a nce a nd p ra n n in g "?:t':r:r B: 51#i'"' S e I ect i o n c o m m ittee a nd M i n i m u m Jfi"r3ltt1ifl l3 ::t,fJ,g The Chief Executive Officer, The Zi|a prajaparishad, Siddipet District, The lt4andal panshad Devel opment Officer, IVlunagala Mandal, Siddipet utstnct, TS 11 L.R Copies. "? I?:,::fl,ilT:retarv, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and company --c_,.^kJ_. ']EE To, 2 3 4 5 6 7 I B I The. Secrelary lelanqana burldrngs Hyderabad One CC to Sri CH. Ganesh Advocates Associa.i I I Library. High Ccurt Advocate tOpUCl 'o lyo""?rt;l"rotfrl"' services-ll High court for rhe s r rte of rerarrgana at 11 One CC to Sri pradeep Reddy Katta, SCIOPUC] 1 2. Two C D Copies TJ enc... HIGH COURT DATED:24 t}gtZ02S \ \ ORDER WP.No.25433 of 2022 t: :)ii ,s ( o(J -t- I i l1P 2026 * ct: -t * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ?Aq, -,-\)-t 2-s