The High Court · 2025

Order

Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petationers, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.s to 8. 2 praver as under: a roached the C urt seekin "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ pf Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not treating the services of petitioners as regular one in last grade post for working from the date of their initial appointment on full time even not paying legitimate wages of Full Time Sweeper, as unjust, unfair, totally arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 16, 21 , 39 (d), 43 & 300 (A) of our Constitution in denying legitimate living wages to petitioners by not implementing Section 13 and 15 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and provisions of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and Govt. Orders from time to time, to pay living wages to petitioners and prays to direct the Respondents herein to treat the SN.J wP 25502 t0l2 services of the petitioners as regular one in last grade post from the date of initial appointment by applying the decisron and principle laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs State of U.P. (2019 (1) SCC 516) and Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in WP No. 33936 of 2011 and Batch Cases dated 02- 05-2018 (2020 (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) followed by decision of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P.in W.A.No.483 of 2O2l dated 05-08-2021 based on principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. No.1254 of 2018 Apex Court, dated 23-03-2018 to reckon contingent services oF petitioners for computation of qualifying service to grant of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits by releasing consequential monetary benefits in the last grade post including periodical increments, as revised from time to time with 1000/o compensation as per principle laid by Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Avtar Chand in C.A.No. 3416-3445 of 2010 & Batch Cases dated 19-02-2019 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by applying the aforesaid principles and decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court & Division Benches under Article 141 of our Constitution by this Hon'ble Court in the case of petitioner and pass such order or orders with costs in the interest of justice." 2 Lea rn sel a ar arn trehalf of fl.a oeti tio ners olacinq reliance on the avermen made in nt wri affidavi h h 6 SN.J \\'P 15501 20ll petitio n Dertaininq lnD r to th e servrces rendered bv Detitioners with the resDond ents herein for more than a decade ntends that the o tition ers are entitled for the rel efa s Dr aved for in the Dresent writ oetition. PERUSED THE RECORD:- DISCUSSIO N AND CONCLUSION:- 4. Learned Detataoners submits that counsela D e rtno on behalf of the the subiect issu e in the oresent se is souarelv vered bv the order of this Court, d ted O8.O9.2O1O n W.P.No. 24377 oJ 2OO7 reDorted in 2OLr,( 1 t LD- Paoe 234 as co

nfirmed in W.A.N0.782 of 2O1O. ated 1O.O5.2013 and also 2 w.P 72L7 20L7 oorted in 2O1a(2)a DP oe L 2A2 and also the order, dated 2L.O4. o 2 O oassed in W.P.No.23O57 of 2019 reDo rted in 2O2O(4) ALD Paoe 379. 5 arned standin unsel aooea nno on behal the reso ndent No.4 subm hat the orievan ce of the Detition ers as Dut- rth in the or esent Writ Petition J r' 1 SN,J wP 25502 2022 had not be en addressed to the resoondents herean as date and therefor n comolain i naction on the D rt of resoondents herein in considerino the o rievance of the Detitioners and hence, the relief a s D ra ed for bv the oetitioner in the oresent Wit oetition cannot be qranted and no Mandamus can be issued aoainst the resoondents hereunder a s so uo ht for and the oetitioners mav be directed to out-forth the oetitioners' qrievance as put-forth in the present Writ Petition by wav of a detailed reoresentation to the resoondents herein 1 nr{ r rnan recet <.e id ranracaalrtian s(lo nden ts wou ld co nsider the same an acco rda nce hin a reasonabl

6. Learned counsel aDoearinq on behalf of the does not dis ute h made bv the learned standinq counsel aDoearino on behalf of the soondent No.4 8 SN.J wP 25502 2012

7. The Aoex court int he iudoment reoorted in (2O2O) 1 SCC (L&S) in Prem Sinqh v State of Uttar Pradesh and 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 ret red tro m the rearrla r a<tehlishrrre nt an.! the services rendered bv them right from the dav thev entered the work-charged establishment rEh t il Jat ouroose of Dension." a..ta rn taA arraliGrrinrr carrriaa

8. The Aoex Court in the case of Dharwad District DWrl I itarrta Itrilrr lAl=aa E mnf zrrraaa A State of Karnataka reDo nl 99()(2) SCC Paoe 396 laid orinciole that the Sta should not keeD a Derson ) q SN,J wP 25502 2022 in temDorarv or ad hoc service for lonq oeriod and have to treat su ch oersons as reoular on e.

9.P ra No.53 of the of the iudoment of the Aoex tate of Karnataka and others Vs. Court in the Umadevi, dated 1 O.O4.2OO6 reoorted in (2006) 4 scc 1 is extract hereunder:- e v v of dul nt ostc (1) scR 1281, "53. One asoect need s to be clarified. There mav be cases where irrequla r aooointme ts (not in S.V. illeqal aooointments) as exolained Narav anaDDa 1L967 R N. Naniunda Doa 1L972 (L ) SCC 4O9'l and B.N. Naqar aian 11979 (4 ) sCC 5O7'l and referred to in ara 15 h 1 hava haa nm ;Aa nction and the emolovees have continued to work for ten v ars or mor but witho t the tntervention of orders of the courts or of tribunal The ouestion of reqularization of t e services of such emolovees mav have to be considered on merits in the li ht of the orinci es settled bv t is Court ti ht es abov n this iudoment. In that context, the nion of the State Governments and their India, ularize instrumentalities should take steos to asa one-time measure, the services of such r ten i rreq ularlv aoooin ted. who have worked s to and f the r of ord nder co r tribu n als and shou !d further ensure that fill those acant recrut tments are ndertaken sa nctioned Dosts hat reouire to be filled uD, ln cases where temoora rv emolo ees or dailv ow emoloved. The o ocess waoers ar e beino n r more in sa ncti IO SN.J wP 25502 2022 must be set in motion within six months from this date. ....

10. The iudom ent the ADex Court dated

20.L2.2O24. reoorted in 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 in Jaooo Anita and others v. Union of India and others. and the relevant oaraqraoh Nos.12, 13, 24, 26, 27 and 28 are extra hereunder: "12. Despite being labelled as "pad-time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. 13. The claim by the resoondents that these were not reoular oosts lacks merit, as the nature of the work oerformed bv the aDoellants was Derennial and fundamental to th 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 t! SN.J u'P 2-5502 2022 outsourcing, which eftectively 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 197 F.3d rlBT (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. 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 hiqhliqhts rectifvino such m isclassification s and workers ensunnq recea ve fair treatment. iudiciarv's role While the judgment in Uma Devi 26. (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 ) SN,J wP 25502 2022 a n d "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It cateqoricallv held that emolovees in irreqular aDpointments, who were had served continuouslv for more than ten years should be considered for reqularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. Thas selective application dastorts the ud men effectively weaoonizinq at aqainst emolovees who h ve 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 !itigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with a ) s\.J \\'t, 1i 502 l0ll 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. 2a. In viev,/ 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

27.t0.2018 are quashed ; The aDDellants shall be . n ack r However, n servtces with a ularised l forthwit aooellants shall not be e titled to anv Decuniarv benefits/ back waqes for the oeriod t ev have r entitled to continuitv of services id oeriod and the same for the would be counted for their Dost- retaral benefits."

11. The Judoment of the Aoex Cou 31.O1.20 5 reoorted in 2O25 INSC L44 in "SHRIPAL AND ANOT HER. v. NAGAR NIGAM. GHAZIABAD,,, iN rt:rtiar lr r r 'rra n 1n.ar.a N nc lS to 19 AIA extracted ereunder: '15. rt ism nifest that the Aooellant Workmen contin uouslv rendered their services t4 SN,J wP 25502 2022 several vears. so metrme s s Dannrno more than a decad e. Even if erta in muster rolls we nfu the Em such records-desDite directions to do so-allows an adverse rnferen ce under wel l-established labour i u risorud ence. Indian labour law stronolv r -wa enoaoe ents in ctrcum tances where the work in nature. Morallv and leqally, ts De manent workers who o ornq mun icioal n fulfil ra C}ar a.nic ar.rl r I n n absenceofa n oenulne in the contractor aqreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique oF indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs: *22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, rerlects a broader systemic issue that adversely atfects 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 ) 1i wl'lir0l s\. I l0ll temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode Public trust in governmental operations. ii. it it a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in gov-ernment inititrtion., often face multifaceted forms of exptoitation. 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 5C fAZO evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several waYs: La ls: m a u m ra r r t r t t c t ell da a o, and i n eqra Itot he fu nctio ntnq of an ln MDorary ,, or "contr actual," even when r h securitv, an d w rker s ar u ntitled to, desoite oerform inq identica I e tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case' This practice ,nJ"r.in"t 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 Progresslon: i".potury employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for - skill development, promotions, or incremental pay Lit"t.' They remain stagnant in the.ir roles' ;;;J"g a systemic disparitv between them and l6 SN.J wP 15502 2022 their regular counterparts, despite 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. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record.

17. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in t7 Si'r-,J wP l-s501 l0ll tv. While con cern ofm 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 thev were ntial, oerennlal du ies, these enoaoed in es workers cannot ber eleqat dto DETD etu al unicip I budqet u n cert ruit ent rules merit and comol rance with considera tion, uch concer sdo ot absolve the Em lover ofs tutorv obliq tions or neoate e limita tions cannot trum the leoitimate riqhtsof workmen who h ve se ed continuouslv in de facto reoular roles for an exten ed oer iod. nti m itable In d order of the ioh Court, to the 18. The im ouon extent thev conf ne the Aooellant Workme to enoaoe ment wit out future dailv-waoe set aside with t e foll irections: I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's seryices, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, t947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed' In consequenie, 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. r8 SN.J wP 2i501 2022 d m 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 judg ment. Their entire oeriod of absence ination unti! r sh all be counted for reinstatement) contin itv of se rvtce and all conse uentia I benefit such as senioritv and elioib ilitv for oromotio s, if anv. III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/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. I d s D . In a rent t IV. The Resoonden EmoloYer is dir cted to initiate a fair an rocess for reqularizin q the AoDellant Work en within ctxmanilr sf ra"rr +ha /r te f reinstatemen |- dulv considerinq the fact that thev have Derformed oerennial municioal duties akin asse srn reqularization, the Emolover shall not imoose educational or orocedural criteria retroactiv lY if such reouirements were never aDD lied to the Aooel lant Workmen or to similarl v situated reoula e olovees in I the Dast- To the extentt hat sanctioned such duties exist or are vacancies for required, the Resoondent Emolover shall all necessarv ad i nistrative exDedite these lon tm llarairaaccAc +.'r emplovees are not indefinitelv retained on dailv warres contrarv to sta utorv and eouitable norms. ) I l9 SN.J wP 25502 2021

19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed"' L2. Th x urt i u m r o 1Su Co rtC s 4 s 20 7 n b n Pu 5 th r P u m o er d oth rs vs a b- ar s 1 2 Si han 3 as under: "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court' while adludicating upon the above controversy had concluded' tilt- ti*ior"'ry employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay-scale, merely for the reason' that the activities Zarried on by daily'wagers and regular 'eiptivee, were similar. The full bench however, made two Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held' entitted to wages at the "*r"ptionr. minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees' lhe exceptions ,ecoided by the full benc.h- of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder: - "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee )iJintt the relular sanctioned posts, il appointed aifter undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equatity of opportunity to all other eligtble candidati:es, ;hall be entitted to minimum of th-e regutar pay scate from the date of engagement' da il a e ll be ntitl' tominimumof ere n ular o nt, 20 SN,J wP 25502 20tl , b ha n rv of nersons- The,rc assumD tion that work of oerennial n ature is rs ch lon oeriod of ti. e, an eauitable riaht Is crea ted in tm for such aalp reoulariza n. if anv. mav h ve to be considered separatelv in terms of legallv oermissible scheme. (j) 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 working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months."

13. The iudoment of the Aoex Court reDorted in 2010(9) SCC 247 between: State of Karnataka and others v M.L. esara and others, tn oarti cular, oaras 4 to 9 reads as under:

4. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered on 1O.4.2OOG (re rted in 20O6 G) SCC 1). In that case. a Constitution Bench 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 directbns 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 ifietere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nor lend them*lves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Coutt further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This f ( SN,J wP 25502 2022 Cou rt however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : ,,5 .o as ect a no ilt Na rava ADDA s scR 7241.R fl. .A' eca s a r7967 72 I s (71 a I, o o f n n e n but with out z, n e I 'a n ,o em o ra a Na 7 ra7 ab ,n s d ma ean work for ten vea se ,ces co side d Drtnciol sse ttled bv t, abovere ferre m t. I Sta f fs he Is. or m e nm erits ,n the ,oht oft 'he urt in theca es ht of ,s e I, e ,s to and ,n m e- e t tns m 'ali a ofs hir u rl for ten ears ormore t du tribu na ts and should fu u re u r cru me ts c a u o s e o s DO er ensure that n t s The s in ca u fe DOr, rv nqn ow o ose va 'h be fille lovee or dailv waq ers a m within stx months from this date "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles- against ' regularization' ii'nunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled: I i) The emDlovee concerned should have worked for 70 ilurt .r-i\rl'in duty sanctioned post without the benefit Lr- proi"rtion of the interim order of any court or tribunal' Lli"l, words, the State Government or its l, 'inrtru iintu tity should have employed the employee and cintinued him in service voluntaritY and continuously for more than ten Years. - 22 SN,J wP 25502 2021 (il rne appointment of such emptoyee shoutd not be illegat, even if irregutar. Where the "iiiirti"ri, are not made or continued against sanctionei ' port, i, inere the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum J,ltalifi.catlons, the appointments will 6e consiered to be tttegat. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed quatifications and *ar' *o'r*nj against sanctioned posts, but had been selectei without undergoing the process of open competiti; ;;tiction, sucn appointments are considered to be irregular. - - -- e e u f m , e , d, d, f t t n o e u tr, m s s m

6. The term ' one-time measure, has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally ^iui tn* uft., the decision in Umadevi, each depa'rtmiit o, eacn instrumentality should underta*e a on6_tie- exercise and prepare a list of all casual,-daily_wage or ad hoc employees y!:,!:r" be.en workins for ioreinun iin iiuo wirhout tne tntervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they bre working against vacant posts aN possess the requisite qialification 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 employ.ees .were stiil pending before Couis.' iinsequentty, several departments and instrumentatities clid not commence the one-time regularization process. On the other hand, some Goiernment iiiiiiurt, instrumentalities undertook the oru_ti^i exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on tne ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to.sheer oversight. In such circumstands, tii-emptoyees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in tJmadevi, wiil not t"se iniii rijnt to oe considered for regularization, merely because thi one-time - - ) SN,J wP 25502 2022 -para mentionect- in exercise was completed without considerinq their cases' or 'piriii 5j of because the sir mo'tn lJmadevi has expired ' 'The one-time exercise should Z;;:'i;;; uii auirvll*ug"tadhoc/those emptovees'who had DUt in 70 years of r:o'tiiiilt service as on 7o'4'2006 ',,i,in.LiZ,lii,i in" p,i,"iiiii ir unv int?lim orders or 'r"'r'ii'", tiioiriats' t an)-enplover had hetd the,one-time exerciseintermsorpu'i53'oftJmadevi'butdidnot consider the cases or soii eiptoyees who were e_ntitled to the benefit of para ss oi itiu[eui, the employer .concerned as a colntinuation of the should consider their '"J"'itto'' one-time exercise' rn" i"" t-iii' exercise witl be to be 'concluded onty when att the '*proi"it y!" :':,,::::t.ted considered in terms of bara 53 of Umadevi' are so considered. m w o m e b I ct be ln th t I n t o o t e t r s v, n e re t f b s U a reoulaflzlation tnv ,ew of thelr rt en e ra , r u t m n t e h a it -w, I e I n n o d-ho c re ul. r o it e t c o e r m e e f , r a ti na o s d a al t n s n U a ev, n es tn a e ns e d b r t e m lo a w fre u r za ,o i ma e en onlvtn r a h e f c f t n e e ec to u derta tI e5 c e re U i m e I asa ne- h fl o t, a u t toe u n a f 'he a no se I I n f n o 53 h n o nd ,s Ii d t n I t h r t t a s a li. t e t n a s n I o h ited w, w, n t t n a d

9. The se appeals have been pending for more than four "lt"[Ti" decision in Umadevi' The Appellant (zila 24 SN,J wP 25502 2022 Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision in LJmadevi or thereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents shoutd be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daity wage/casual/ad_hoc employees serving the Zita panchayat aid if so whether such employees (inctuding the respondents) fulfilt the requirements mentioned in para 53 of lJmadevi. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaien by ignoring or omitting fhe cases of respondents 1 to 3 beciuse oi the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the reguirements'of para 53 of Umadevi, their seruices need not be regularised. If the employees who have compteted ten yea| seryice do not possess the educational quatifications 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 ihal Si nqh t4. In e iudqment of th e Dex court an sv ta t un o 2 L4 scc 65. the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made avaatabte. It held that the mere fact that wages wene paid by the Bank did not render the appeltants 'employees. of those SN.J wt, 15501 2022 Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State' It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authority of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship' its action is arbitrary. there weren sa ncti ne t he ef sts and so therew as to util e to ac r fuse rv ce t f e I n t u f Iel ke ea ellan ts do ot nc ion f rd ad s I he ve h s cr at b o th b t m ra na a e er n f re he w re m o td hat he c t a no an'ir u r e m e n ccord nce wl h e c t re rl ed nd r heP ti 1 e u o tr nt n s t 1 n h s e titl t n e to be abs rbe tntot he services of the State n t t h 26 SN,J wP 25502 2022 n nt basis tn m were urel tem or anv sanctioned oosts created bv the State. It was held ud ment in or ex loitati nb v t instrumentalities and neither the Government of r tor Ban n such a oractice inconsistent with their obliqation to function in accordan with the Constitution.

15. The iudqment of the Aoex Court reported in 2015 SCC Online SC t797 between B.Srinivasulu and others v Nellore Municipal Corooration Rep,bv its Commissioner, Nellore District. Andhra Pradesh and others, in particular oaras 7 and 8 reads as under: (7) e ifficult to acc h Court. The ri ht of the reoularization flows from the G.O. .2No 12 dated 22.4.1994. The aDoellant have been in service of the first resDondent not only prior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even qthceoUcnt to the issue of G.O. till toda The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 272(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 7l SN.J \r't, l5 501 l0ll 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 appelianis' services be regularised with effect from the date oif their completing their five Year continuous service as this Court in District was taid down by Coltector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors' 2009 (8) scc 480.

15. In markant Rai v State of Bihar reDorted (2015) 8 SCC 265, the Suoreme Court held that'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and fem men who had servedtheS tate Gov ernmentandt heir ore than ten vears". In that instru mentalities fsr emolovee was workinq for 29 vea rs. decision aD roves earlier view exoressed in This M.L.Kesari e racted above. L7. In State of .Iarkh and v Ka al Prasad reoort d an 7 20 Suore me Court a nd it was held as follows: imilar vi ww take 2 b "47. In view of the cateoori'cal find ooffa ice for emo vees have continued tn err se US , SN,J wP 25502 2022 than 7O vear.sco nttnu uslv th erefore. the leqal o DrinciDle laid do wn bv this Court in Umade , case (State of Karnata ka v Umadevi ( 006) 4 scc 7 : 2O06 scc (L&S) 3so uarel s aDolies Dresent cases. The Division Ben h of the Hia Court has r,I htlv held th t the res ndent emolo be in th s Da ti, DO with bv this Court." e

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.LZ.2OZ2 passed in W.P.No.276O2 ot 2O19 which pertains regularazation of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Tempte, yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 ot 2lJ23 dated

10.10.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated 09.08.2024 in SLp No.32847 ot 2024.

19. The iudqment oftheA Dex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V- s ofM rashtra and Others ha a reDorted in AIR 2 020 Su reme Court 3969 and in ntr+i-rr !ar r,N os rn.l and 1O1 held a !t w "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 ot 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 a rT here the Gov rnm iled to ex rct wronolv exercrse d discretion conferred r uoon it 29 SN.J \\'P 15501 l0ll e r de tsro of he s ch sta te b ov rnm nt mala fide,oron irrelev ant consid eration. 101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropiiate and lawful manner of ihe discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authoritY,"

20. T Di Be hof u ud me te 10. 2 e .No 7 2ol 10 nd 854 of 1 whi u 7 m nt dated o .09. 10 w No. 4 7 of 2OO7 an c.c.N .48 2 8o erv as nde "Further, it is manifest from the material on record that the ,"irri."i'oi the similarly placed persons who approached in" t"* Courts were regularized' The appella nt-Corpo ration utao issued varioui office orde rslcircu la rs dated ZO.rZ.rgeg, 11.09.1992, O6'10'2007 and Iatest being i.l .zoog for regularization of casual/contract employees' It is atio to be seln that Section 25-T of the ID Act prohibits uniai. tauour practice by any employer or workman' As can U" a""n from the factual scenario of the cases on hand' the respondents for such a long and continuous time on casual basis is nothing but unfair labour "nguging ;;;;a "1 'oractice attracting the provisions of Section 25-T of the ID [.i. ih" learned 6ingle'Judge while relying on the decisions oi in" npu, Court, rightly held that the respondents are io .egutariza-tion as directed in the impugned il;;;; ui iltJ learned single Judge considered all the "ntiti"a of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective' *tii.f,. in our considered view does not warrant "ro".ts interference in these aPPeals." 30 SN.J wP 25502 2022 2L. The Division Benchof his Court in its J dqment t dated 19. O9.2OL7 Dassed an W-P.No.27217 oJ 2OL7 reoorted in 2018(2) ALD ta o e 282 at Dara 15 and oara 18 observed as under:- "16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.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 ula rization of those, who were worklng for a period of not less than t0 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Un'ron of India. 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.L994, 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 regu la rization/a bsorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 1OO and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994. do not whittle down the width and the judgment in Maniula Easfrrhi's case (suora), does not lower the traiectorw f the directions issued bv the Supreme Court in Para 53 of its iudgment in Uma llantit< aaca for the resoondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.o- Ms- No-2 1 ) dated 22.4.L994. to denv reqularization to the petitioners. who have, admittedlv, satisfied the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the iudorne n ln Uma Devi's case (suora). 18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2OL7, in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the resoondents to consider reoularisation of t rvices of the Detitioners +1ra'afzrra n^f narnriccilrla I ctt; r t SN.J wP 25501 20ll aqarnst the existino vaca ncies of Work Insoe ctors to their satasfvino the and aDDOint criteri a laid down in Para N o.53 of the iudom nt ln em subie ma Dev m le tofacoD of this order Thi h

22. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judq ment dated 2L.O4.2020 oassed in I-A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1of 7 ol 2019 reDort din nd oara50 379 at Daras 45, 48 a 2020 4 )ALD oa and W.P .No.23O5 2019 e o observ as und "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been woi-king 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. It is not known whv the 1st resoondent has not followed the decision in Uma Devi's case (suor a), as in M.L Kesaii's case (suDra ) and exo la i ned undertaken a one-time exercise of oreparino the list t As it than ten ( 10)v ears with rrt thc ln rvcntio n of the Cou rts and Tribun ls as on 1O. 4.2OO6 and ubiect Cir^rlian ac |'lrarrr t ^ - workin o aoainst vacant oosts and oossess reo uisite ons for the Dosts, and if so reo ula ri e their oualifi servrces. wh tlra r the dt .i m v rt iirataaclc m |.t t h t

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; 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 declar-ed as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia; ther esDondents are di rected to reo u la rize on one-tim basls netiti.)ne tse rvlce from the date 10 f t h h s f 32 SN.J wP 25502 2022 ADDO ntment. But. thev shall not be entitled to anv d n T h r b s o of the order. " m f

23. This Court ooines th at ln the oresent cas , the resDondents f iled to discharoe their du xamini h f, reou la rizatio of oetit ioners' rvtces, who is wo rki nq u rt time sweeDer and fu t er to consider their e of th qrade Dost of Dart time sweeoer s rv Detition ers in the la a ime f ular one r all ourDoses bv or ntino last qrade men r v m tim t IN men t h o ers rdance to law.

24. This urt oDines that oetitioners are entitled for consi deration of Deti onti rs' case for orant of the rel ief s Draved fo in the oresent Writ Petition in the observations of the Aoex Court in varrous ttl tltr mA n c (ta ) s bove vlew f the Division Benc of this Court avlraeloA rrad ta r n h d tha in the Judom nts referred a nd extracte d above. )11 SN.J wP 25501 l0ll

25. Takin into c nsl erat n The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the a ) case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned standing counsel aPPearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.5 to 8. c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted belowl i)(2o2o) 1 SCC (L&S) (ii) rggo(z) scc Pase 396 (iia) 2025 rNSC 144 ii"i 2o24 Lawsuit(sc) 1209 (v) (2O17) l SCc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2o13) 14ScC 6s iviii) zors scc online sc a797 (ix) (2o1s) I scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 SCC223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 txiil ArR 2o2o suPreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 txiv) 2O11(1) ALD, Page234 (xv) 2O18(z)ALo Page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALO Page 379 34 SN.J WP l-\501 20ll d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated

10.06.2013 passed an W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O and 854 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment dated O8.O9.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 ol 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated L9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.27217 ot 2Ot7 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23057 of 2O19 (referred to and extracted above). g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order. The Writ Petition is allowed. the oetitioners are directed to out- rth the laim of the oetationers for reqularization of oetitioners' services, and also the claim of the oetitioners to treat the temDorarv l5 SN.,I wP 25502 2021 f the etition rs In he last o f Swee oer as reoular on e for all ourDose s bv qra ntinq la st qrade Dav w th Deri odica! i ncremen ts revi sed from ti me to ti me f rom the date of aooointment of the titio r a all c nse u nefits osino all the relevant docum ents in suooort of Detitioners'case as out-forth tn the Dresent wrat n wt rna erl n o wee mt r er resoondents shall examrne and consi der the same in accordance to law, in co nfor itv with orinciol natu ra I iustice bv rovidin ano oortuni nal h rtn to he eti b he Su reme rted in 2O06(4) S C Paoe in W. P.No.24377ot2 07 da the iudoment Dassed o8.09. O1O reD rted 2()11 ALD Pa e 4 d w.A. No.782 f 2010 ated 10.05.2013, and als Division Bench Judqment of this Court da ted Der .20L7 .P.N 27 f20 in 2O 18(2)ALD aoe 282 a nd also th Division i6 s\.J wP 2i501 t0ll 2 0 a s t Judqmen of this C urt -dated 2L.O4.20 I.A.Nos.1 of 2U^20 inlof 201 2019 re rted in 2 20 4 ALD a a finalit within a tn w.P. o.23Os7 of 37 ch had ert d of four o4 w ks w from th dat of recei of this rder dul into consid erati t id down b the A o ons nd the Co vartous ud men ts refer d and extr ular para No.53 of the iud mentof the Aoex e a Co rt in th ca e of Sta of a Devi and d u ly comm unlca te the dectston to the petition ers. H wev f there shall be n o ts. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. ! t , ---l SD/-AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ To, //TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER One fair copy to the Hon'ble Mrs Justice Surepalli Nanda (for Her Ladyships Kind Perusal) 'l . The Principal Secretary. Panchayathra.j Departnrent, Telangana Secretariat Hyderabad,

2. The Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Telangana Secretariat. Hyderabad. 3- The District Collector and Chairman of Selection Commiftee and Minimum Wages Committee. Warangal Urban District.

4. The District Collector and Chairman of Selectbn Committee and Minimum Wages Committee, tvlahabubabad District.

5. The chief Executive off icer Zlla Prala Panshad Warangal Urban District' 6.TheChiefExecutiveOfficer,ZtllaPraiaParishadlr'4ahabubabadDistrict' 7. The Mandal Parishad Development OFficer' Kuravi lrlandal' Mahabubabad District. B. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer' Nekkonda trilandal' Warangal Urban District.

9. One CC to SRI CH.GANESH' Advocate [OPUCI l0.TwoCCstoGPFoRSERV|CESl.HrghCourtfortheStateofTelangana. ro!rl r 1.O|e CC to SRI K PRADEEP REDDY' SC FoR GPPS' [OPUC] 12.11 LR.CoPies 13.The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ivl rn rstry of Law, Justice and ComPanY Attairs, New Delhi. Associatlon Ltbrary' High Court Buildings'

14.The Secretary' Advocates Hyderabad.

15.Two CD CoPies. O BSK BS HIGH COURT DATED:2510712025 * Y ogTHE S T4 6 ? 1s il/ln 2rt6 : sPATC )+ ORDER WPrNq.25502 of 2022 LOIA/ING-IHE }VRITfETITION - . THOUT4OSTS