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. Katta Pradeep Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TG ZPP MPP GPPS, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5. 2 as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not treating the services of petitioner as regular one in last grade post for working from 43 long years on full time even not paying legitimate wages of Full Time Sweeper, as per appointment order dated OLIO6/L990, as unjust, unfair, totally arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 4 r) . SN, J u'p,25(,09._2022

16, 21, 39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of our Constitution in denying legitimate living wages to petitioner by not implementing Sections 13 and 15 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and provisions of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and Govt. Orders from time to time, to pay iiving wages to petitioner and prays to direct the Respondents herein to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in last grade post from the date of initial appointment of OLl06/ 7990 by applying the decision and principle laid by the Honorable Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs State of U.P. (2019 (1) SCC 516) and Division Bench of this Honorable Court in WP No. 33936 of 2011 and Batch Cases dated O2/05/2018 (2020 (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) followed by decision of the Honorable High Court of A.P. in W.A. No. 483 of 2021 dated 05/08/2021 based on principle laid by the Honorable Supreme Court in C.A. No. 1254 of 2018 Apex Court, dated 23/O3l20lB to reckon contingent services of petitioner for computation of qualifying service l-o grant of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits by releasing consequential monetary benefits in the last grade post including periodical increments, as revised from time to time with 100 percent compensation as per prlnciple laid by Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Avtar Chand in C.A.No. 3416 - 3445 of 2010 and Batch Cases dated 19/02/2OL9 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by applying the aforesaid principles and decisions of the Honorable Apex Court and Division Benches under Article 141 of our Constitution by this Honorable Court in the case of petitioner and pass"... J 5 SN, J \ep_25609 _2022 3 Learned co nsel aooearinq on half of the petitioner placino reliance on the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the oresent writ oetition oertaininq in oarticular. to the services rendered bv petitioner with the resoondents herein for more than a Aaastlla rila.rrlc + rf h alilia n ar iG a6titla Jrst iha relief as Draved for in t e Dresent wrtt etition. PERUSED T E RECORD:- DISCUS ION AND CON LUSION 4 D I arrnad a lt fta n hahrlf f er submits that the subiect issue in the resent case is souarelv covered bv the ord r of this Cou

08.09.201 O oassed in W.P.N o-24377 ot 2OO7 Dorted in 2011( 1) LD. Paoe 234 as confirmed in W.A. 0.782 ot 201O. da 1O.O6.2O13 and a so order, dated 1 o9 -20L7 oassed in W.P.No.272 L7 of 2OL7 reoorted in 2O18 2) ALD Paoe 282 and also the order, dated 2L.O4.2O2O Dassed in W.P.No.23O57 of 2019 reDorted in 2020(4) ALD Paoe 379. la. r nad -l-Frlihr.. 5 respondent No.4 submits that the qrievance of the nirarr.ina an tralr a^r rrtcal lC aC jha 6 SN, J wp_25609-2022 reasonable period.

6. No.4 7 SN, J wp 25609 2022

7. others, at oara 36 held as under: "36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30- 40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services ,,

8. '\- q:- r-t- ! t I I ! I 8 -\ SN, J wp_25609 2022 persons as reqular one. 9 hereunder:; 9 SN, J utr, 25609_2022

10. 0 n "12. Despite being labelled as "part-time appellants performed these workersr" essentiat 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 recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional' l0 SN, J wp]5609 _2022

24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In . this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to 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. Thls 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 hiohliohts the iudiciarv's role in rectifvino such misclassifications and ensurino that workers recei fair treatment. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" appointments. It cateooricallv held that emolovees in irreqular aooointmen , who were enqaqed in dulv sanctioned oosts and had served continu ouslv for more than ten vears should rre ula rizatio n as a one- be con idered time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their "irregular" SN, J wp_25609-2022 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 appropriate. This selective apolication distorts the judqment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaoonizinq it aoainst employees who have rendered indisoensable 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 discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 .L0.2018 are quashed; tL t2 o SN, J wp]5609 .]022 t tle . The ao llants shall be taken on dutv forthwith a nd their servlces rthwith. req u la rised However, the aooellants shall not be a e oeriod benefits/ back waqes for thev have not worked for but would be entitl d to continuitv of services m counted for their oost- retiral benefats."

11. The Judoment of the Aoex Cou dated 31.o L.202s 44i edin2 2 Rv NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD", in oarticular, the releva nt para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder: AND *15. the A w r contin uouslv rendered their services over da cad Erranif .li nfII lt the Emolover's failure to furnish such records- rrralirna ss nnln rfrin nrrrster r evera I +h n e ns to -all w stabli h r n n w I U flSprU ence. Indian lab ur law stronqlv disfavors perpetual dailv-waoe or contractual enqaoements in circumstances where the work is oermanent in nature Morallv a d leqallv, workers wh fulfil onoo no munrcioal reour- ments vear after vear Dar cu la rlv ofa qenu ine contractor in the 13 SN, J wp_25609_2022 agreement. 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 "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, dS 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 that can erode public trust in govern mental operations.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particular:ly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices' manifest in several ways: o Misuse gf "Temporary" Labels: Employees enqaqed for work that is essential, recurrinq, and inteqral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as "temoorary" or "contractual." even w en their roles mirror \ *, €r? t4 SN, J wp_25609_2022 emolovees are entitled to, despite oerformino identical tasks. . 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 equally significant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield': Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental 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 inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequenily, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some g 1r.":---- r------_ i ! l5 SN, J wp_25609_2022 measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record. L7. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they wer:e engaoed in essential, oerennial duties, these workers cannot be t6 SN, J \ttp _25609 _.2022 meanino ful back waoes. is herebv set aside with the followi no directions: I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 7947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) lvithin four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their e tire oeriod of a sence (from th date of termina tion until actual rei nstatement ) sha!! be cou nted for co tinuitv of service and all conseo ential benefits. such as senioritv and elioibili for oromotion , if anv. 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. IV. The Resoondent Emolover is di ed to initiate a fair nd transoarent Droc reou flztno the Aooellant Workmen wit rn stx mont s from the date of retnstatemen ct that th consr erano the have oe oerennial municioal duties akin to oermanent oosts. In assessino reqularization, the r shall not imoose educatio al or Emol ne er aoDlied to the similarlv situ ated orkmenor reo !remen Aooellant v I l7 SN, J wp]5609 _2022 reoular em lovees in the oast. To the extent exoedite all necessarv administrative orocesses to ensure these lonotime emolovees are not indefinitelv retained on dailv waoes contrarv to statuto and eouitabl 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." 1,2. The Apex Court in a iudqment reoorted in (2O17) 1 Suoreme Court Cases 148, in State of Puniab and others vs Jaoiit Sinqh and others at Paras 54 and its sub-oaras (1)(2)(3), of the said iudoment observed as under: "54 "The Futt Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay- scale, merely for the reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The full bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:- "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equatity of oppoftunity to all other eligible candidates, shat! be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement, l8 SN. J wp,25609_2022 6^ji^ t,ilh I al hsaaL< hv tha C.tzta r..a6}i,,r,,.1'rctv Government or ts ,nstru entalities for a sufficient lono oeriod i.e. for 70 vears. such dailY Waoers, ad hoc or contractual aDDoi. tees shall be entitled to minimum of the reoular Dav scale without anv mDtion that work of allowances on the oerennial nature is available and having worked for of time, an eduitable riqht is such lona created in such Category of oersons. Their claim for reoula rizatio . if anv. mav have to be considered seDaratelv in terms of a llv Derm issi ble sche me. (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 10 years of continuous workingt a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitted to arrears for a period of three years and two months."

13. ment of the A ted in 2 1 SCC 247 between: State of Karnataka and others v M.L.Kesari and others, in oarticular, Daras 4 to 9 reads as u nder:

4. The decision in S te of Karnataka v. Umadev i was rendered re o . In tha eenstjt_u_tipn EeAEh of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating 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 interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legat right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the retevant rules or in l9 SN, J wp_25609 2022 adherence of Artictes 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : fufther ensure that reoular recruitment,s are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts within six months from this date. ,... "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularization' enunciated in lJmadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (i) The emptoyee concerned should have worked for 10 years or ioru in dity 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 sentice voluntarily and continuously for more than ten Years. (ii) The appointment of such employee shoutd not be illegal, even if iiregular. Where the appointments are not made or o* *: 20 SN, J wp_25609 -.2022 continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. dut where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected with.out undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irreguiar.

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

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees w.ere still pending before Courts, Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one_ h" regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding severa! employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in cou rts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, th-e employees who were entitted to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in lJmadevi, witt not lose their right to be consid.ered for regularization, merely because the one_time .Llas .completed without considering their cases, or because six. month period mentioned in pira 53 of lJmadevi -e_:cise -the. nas expired. The one-time exercise should consider alt daity_ wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years'of 2l SN, J -25609 _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 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when all the emptoyees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of tJmadevi, are so cons.idered. thzn ten wears of have ,,Ut tn without the protection of anv interim orders of cou rts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was r reoularization in viewof are considered ce. ntinuous hoc/c'asual for lona oeri' s and t Den icallv EDDO'N a n ent- The tru€! e ffect of the direction is at all a n e n measure. g. These appeats have been pending for more than four years after the decision in tJmadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or thereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with 22 SN, J wp_25609_2022 law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zita panchayat, caiag shoutd now undertake an exercise within six months, a Eeierat one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zita panchayai and'if so whether such employees (including th.g respondents) futfitt the requirements mentioned in para 5j of lJmadevi. If they fulfilt them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases or respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shatt have to be considered i'n continuation of the said one time exercise within three months, It is needtess fo say that if the respondents do not fulfilt the requirements of Para 53 of umadevi, their services need not be iegutarised. If the ernployees who have completed ten years service do not posse.ss the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This'appeal is disposed of accordingly.

14. In the iudo ent of e Aoex Court i Nihal din (2013) 1 and others v. State of Puniab re 65, the Supreme court considered the case of absorption of Special Police officers appointed by the state, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. rt held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the state and disciplinary control vested with the state. rt held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter ..} --2.+n.-. . ... ",: -: 23 SN, J wp]s6o9]022 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 rrJ l .^,aa ir ralifiu.nl far +lra C+-+a +^ rrliliaa n TI n n 24 SN, J \vp]5609 2022 its instrumentalities and neither the Government of Puniab nor those oublic sector Banks can continue such a consisten wt ation to fun accordance with the Constitution.

15. The iudqment of the Aoex Court reoorted in 2015 Gf r^ 6nli sc L797 lra+ w n El Qri nivasulu an ntharc rr Munici r Re Nellore Distric t, Andhra Pradesh and othe rs, in oarticular oaras 7 and 8 reads as under: G the said (7) Hiah Cou

22.4.1994. have been tn servtce of the first resDondent not o We find it difficu lt to acceDt the reasonine adoo ted bv the The riaht of the aDDellants to seek reqularization the G.O. t lv Drior to the .O. but even subs eouent to the issue of G.O. ltll_lpdAy, 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. 8. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' services be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs, M.L. Singh & Ors.2OO9 (B) SCC 480,

16. In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar reoorted (2O15) g SCC 265, the Suoreme Court held that .The objective 25 SN, J vtp 25609J022 behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are iregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure securitv of emolovm nt of those Derso s who had served the State Government and their instrumentalities for more than ten vears". I that case, emolov ee was workino for 29 vears. This decrsron aDDroves arlier view exD ed in M.L.Kesari e racted above. t7. In State of Jarkhand v Ka mal Prasad re 2 t4 7SC k n rted an Suoreme Court and it was held as follows : "47,... rn view of the cateoorical findina of fact on the relevant contentious issue that the resDondent emolovees have continued in their service for more than 7O vears continuouslv therefore. the leoal orinciole laid down bv this Court in llmadevi case (State of Karnataka v Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 7 : 2006 SCC (L&SI 73) at oara 53 squarelv a,,plies to the present cases. The Division Bench of the Hioh eld that the cq*ta rcliaC }ha rt has riohtlv Jat anlillaA inrcrtered with bv this Court."

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.276O2 ol 2Ol9 which Pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha 26 SN, J wp_25609_2022 Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2023 dated 10.10.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated

09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.

19. Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others reoorted Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows: "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are dutv-bound to exercise such power, where the Government or a public authoritv has failed to exercise or has wronqlv exercised discretion conferred upon it bv a statute. or a rule, or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised consideration.

101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority." 20 27 SN, J wp _25609 _2022 Dassed an w.P .No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C. o.48 of 2OO8 observed s under:- "Further, it is manifest from the material on record that the services of the similarly placed persons wl.ro approached the law Courts were regularized. The appellant-Corporation also issued various office orders/circu lars dated 20.12.1989, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for regularization of casual/contract employees, it is also to be seen that Section 25- T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for such a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of Section 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respondents are entitled to regularization as directed in the impugned orders, as the learned single Judge considered all the aspects of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals."

21. The Division Bench of this Court in dated 19.O9.20 a7 oassed in W.P.No.27 21,7 of 2O!7 reported in 2018(z)ALD oaoe 282 at para 16 and para 18 s Judoment observed as under:- "16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Afticle 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in lJma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of t994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time absorption/reg ularization of those, who .were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. 28 \tp_25609 SN, J -2022 The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regularizatioq/absorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of L994 10O and G.O. Ms. No.212. dated a', i 1044 iudoment in lt{anjula Eashrnf's case (suora), does not lower the traiectorv of the directions issued bv the Suoreme Court in Para 53 of its judgment in Urna Devi's case (supra). It is. therefore. not permissible for the resoondents to take shelter nder Act 2 0t L994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, to deny reoularization to ?ha 6a+ilirirrar.e ih6 crateria laid down in Para N .53 of the iudoment in Uma Devi's case (supta). alzrrern +ha r^ri.llh admiiladhr hn ht v G.+icfi6rl r rhittla .?r.l n.if w ic t rerrii lrafiliriri

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2077, in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and fha resoondents to consider req larisation of the services of the petitioners aoainst the existino vacancies of Work Insoectors and apooint them subject to their satisfyino the criteria laid down in Para No,53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (suora). This orocess must be comoleted withan two months from the date of receipt of a copv of this order." wti h 1he 'lir--+i7rtr i^

22. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment dated 21.O4.202O passed in I.A.Nos.1 ot 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23057 of 2019 reoorted in 2O2O(4)ALD oaoe 379 at Daras 45, 48 and ra 50 observed as under:- "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date.

48. ft is not known w e 1st resoonde t has not followed the decision in Uma Devi's case (suDra). as n h 29 SN, J wpJ5609-2022 explained in M.L. Kesari's case (supra) and undertaken a one-time exercise of preoaring the list of daily wage emoloyees who had worked for more than ten (1O) years without the intervention of the Courts ancl Tribunals as on 1O.4.2006 and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess requisite qualifications for the posts. and if so' regularize their services. 50. Accordingly, the writ petition is afioweA; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles L4, 16 and 2t of the Constitution of India; the resoonclents are directed to regularize on one-time basis petitioners' services from the clate each of the petitioners complete 10 years of service on daily wages from the initial dates of their appointment. But. they shall not be entitlecl to any monetary relief. The said exercise shall be done within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of coov of the order." urt oDines that in the Dresent 23. This responclents failed to discharoe their duty in examinino the request of the oetitioner for reqularization of petitioner's services, who is workino as full time sweeOer and further to consider his reouest to treat the temporarv service of the petitioner in the last grade oost of full time sweeper as regular one for all purposes bv grantino last gracte oav with ogriocticat increment revised from time to time from the clate of appointment of the oetitioner, in accordance to law. a 9v 30 SN, J \vp_25609_2022

24. This court ooines that petitioner is entitled for consideration of petitioner's case for orant of the relief as oraved for in the present writ petition in view of the observations of lhe Aoex court in various judqments (referred to and extracted above) and the view of the Division Bench of this court in the Judoments referred to and extracted above.

25. Takinq into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the tea'rned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner and 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) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 Law Suit (SC) tZOg (v) (2oL7) 1 scC 148 (vi) 2010(9) scc z4t (vii) (2013) l4scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Ontine SC tTgz 3l SN, J wp_25609_2022 (ix) (2o1s) 8 Scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 oJ 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O SuPreme Court 3969 (xi.i) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2011 ( 1) ALD , Page 234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD Page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD Page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this court dated 10.06.2013 passed in w.A.Nos.7A2 of 2O10 and 854 of 2OL2 white uploading the Judgment dated o8.o9.2o1o passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OOB (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this . court dated 19.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2O17 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this court dated 2t.o4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2o2o in 1 of 2o19 and W.P.No.23Q.57 of 2O19 (referred to and extracted above). g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order. The writ Petition is allowed the Detitioner is directecl to put-forth the claim of the petitioner for b SZ SN. J vtp _25609 _2022 reo u la riza lon of etitioner's se rvaces, nd alsothec aim of he oetitioner to treat the mDora rv services of the h r f r r for all ourDOSeS bv ora ntino Iast or de oav with oeriod ica I rncrements revised from time o time from he date of n n benefits, ulv enclosino all th relev nt do uments in u n t hin e n writ petition, within a oeriod of one (O1 week from the e e r n shall examine and consider the same in acco rdanc law, in conform tv with orinciDles ofn tural Drovidino ano DDO i ustice bv hea ri qto the DE onal r r b e Co rt tn Uma Devi's case reDo in 2OO6(4)S CC Paq e1, assed inW.P.No. 4377 of 2O07d ted the iudo ment 8 L d 1 D e 4 n a 7 3 d alsoasDer Divisaon nch Judqm nt of this C urt d ted 1 a 2 2 20 18(2 ALD oao 2A alsoth e Division Be ch n 33 SN, J wp_256Q9_2022 Judgment of this Court dated 21.04.2O20 oassed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2020 in 1of 2019 in W.p.No.23057 of 2019 reoorted in 2O2O(4)ALD oage 379 which had attained finalitv. within a period of four LO4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, dulv takino into consideration the observations and the law laid down bv the Apex Court in the Various iudoments (referred to and extracted above), and ih oarticular. para No.53 of the iudqment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka y. Uma Deyi and dulv communicate the decision to the oetitioner. However. there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if dfly, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// U ED ABDULLA KHAN TANT REGISTRAR _-- ECTION OFFICER One fair copy to the Hon'ble Mrs Justice Su (for Her Ladyships Kind Perusalf To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayathraj and Rural Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. Department,

2. The Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

3. The District Collector, (Panchayat) and Chdirman Minimum Wages Commiftee and District Selection Committee, Vikarabad District.

4. The Zilla Praja Parishad, Vikarabad District, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer.

5. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Peddamul Mandal, Vikarabad District. i I I i I I I ! i i j : i i ;

6. One CC to SRI CH.GANESH, Advocate. [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYATH RAJ & RURAL DEV, High Court for the . State of Telangana. [OUT]

8. Two CCs to GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING, High Coutt for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

9. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

10.One CC to SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR GPPS. [OPUC]

11.11 LR.Copies

12.The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

13.The Secretary, Advocates' Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. 101Two CD Copies BSK W HIGH COURT DATED:2410712025 \ \ CC TODAY TiiE S t 1 ! 0r[ 2025 () * ORDER WP.No.25609 of 2022 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS *fd Hrn'