The High Court · 2025

Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistarl Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Rural Developm€ nt, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos 1 an I 3, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance tnd Planning, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.i: and Sri. Katta Pradeep Reddy, learned Standing counsel for ZPPS and MPPS and GPSS, appearing on behalf of resll )ndent No.4.

2. The petitioner aporoached the Court ; eekinq Draver as under: " to rssue an order or direction more particule 1y one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respc r dents to treat the servrces of the petittoner as regular one ir :he last grade post For continuously working till date in tenrl orary post of last grade in contingent establishment on , ompassionate qrounds from 20 03-2001 nor regularizing hit; services even on completron of 21 long years service by no: extending the last grade pay benefits with periodical increrrt nts from time to time w th erfect from 20-03-2001 to till dat from time to time with arrears as per GO Ms. No. 687 datec )3-10-1977 to trll date rs highly unjust and unfair as per Arti( le L4, 16, 21, 39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of Constitution of Ind. by subjecting petitione!- for exploitative enslavement due t > his helpless condrtions of poverty, poor social, economic; and political background by taking it as advantage by the espondents tn ) SN, J wp_255'lO_2022 case is souarelv cove red bv the order of this Court, dated

08.09.2O10 passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 reported in 2011(1) ALD- Paoe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2010, dated 10.06.2013 and also order, dated 19.O9.2O17 passed in W.P.No.272L7 ot 2O17 reported in 2O18 (2) ALD Paqe 282 and also the order, dated 2U14.2020 -passed in W.P.No.23O57 of 2019 reported in 2O2O(4) ALD Paoe 379.

5. Learned standinq counsel apoearirq on behallof the resoondent No.4 submits that the qrievance of the petitioner as put-forth in the present Wrat Pctition had not been addressed to the resDondents herein as on date and therefore, the petitioner cannot complain anactaon on the part of respondents herein in considerino the orievance of the petitioner and hence, the relief as Drayed for bv the petitioner in the present Wit petition cannot be qranted and no Mandamus can be issued aqainst the resDondents hereunder as souoht for and the Detitioner mav be directed to put-forth the Detitioner's qrievance as Dut- forth in the oresent Writ Petition bv wav of a detailed representation to the lespQndents neleln and upon Lec€iLt of the said represe tion, the respordents would 6 SN. J \!p 25570 2022 r n larn, within a o o e a re sonable oeriod. 6 d s t u sel appea rt nq on be alf of ' t h te oetiti one r e s s sl nm de tt',t el standan o counsel aDoearin oonb half of tl" .! res oondent No.4 h c 7 scc( L&s)in Premsinqh v o ers, atDara 36held as und er: d men r or r:lin (2o20) 1 State ofU ar' P radesha nd ey have been sul ) work-charged e. a "36. There are som e of the employees who i-t r e not been re9 ularized in sPite of having rendered the serr ices for 30- rannuated 40 or more Years whereas th blishment, As they have worked in the their serv ( :s ought to not against anY Pa rticula r Project, overn ment in st ruction s have been reg ularized under the G this Cour in State of and even as per the decision of Thrs Cou,l: in the said Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11 decis ion has laid down that in case servrcr' have been rende red for more than ten years wlthou[ tirl cover of the services be Court's order, as one-time measure' faclr. rf the case, re9 ularized of such emPloyees ln the ars or more those emPloYees who have worked for ten 1 )e proper to should have been regularized. It would no .ri ln as others regulate the m for consideration of regularrz I services be have been regularized, we direct that the r ie clear that ular one. However, lt is n' treated as a reg they shall not be entitled to claiming anY dut' of d iffe re nce in wages had they been continucd rn se rce reg u la rlY hey shall be before attaining the age of superan n uation entitled to rece ive the Pension as rf theY lrave retired I he se rvtc es e h rlqht from the dav t 1ev e ntered ren der dbv the 7 sN, j wp-25570 2022 the work-charoed establishment shall be counted as o ualifvino servrce for o u IDose o Dension. "

8. The x Court in the ca se of Dharwad Distri PWD Dail w Em Karnata ka reoorted an 1990(2) SCC Paqe 396 laid o rancaDle c servr ould no k f a and h Dersons as eqular one. 9 Para No.53 of the of the iudome nt of the Ao Court heS rnata ka n others V

10.04. OO6 reoorted in (2006) 4 SCClise hereunder: - lre clarifietl Ther a sftect needs t a) "53 On cases where irr ular aoooin tments ( not illeqal aDDOrn tments) as exolained in S.V. Narav NADDA R.N. Nan cc4 and referred to in para 15 above. of dulv qualified B.N. Na ar an 1 SCR 12 L97 a 4 c 1 ns in dul nctioned v n ml h been m de and the emolovees have con inued to work for ten vears or more but wit out the interven ion of orders of the courts or of ribu na ls. The ouestion of reo larization of the servi ces of such emolovees mav have to be considered on erits in the !ioht of the orincio les settled bv this Co rt in the o and in h that context nts and thc I ln ron d f Indi h ir instr I J i +ha t udct s abover I Govern 8 SN. J \.p 25570 2022 raze asa one-trme sh uld take steDs to reou I mea sure, the servi sof such irrequ la t1v aopointed, l rore in dulv who haveworked for tenv ears or '_ rrders of the sa nctio ned oosts but not under cover ol l ensure that co rtsorof tribunals and sho uld furtht - to fill those areu nderta ke n ular recr r ouire t c be filled uo, vacant sa ncti ned ee o da ilv waqers I w The roce Sl ust be set in a re beino now emD motion within six months fro m this dat r loved. m 1 eA xCourt date 20.t2.20 24. ( 4La Suit( c) 12O9 in JatI ro Anita India and others, a nci L3. 24, 26, 27 and 28 tre extra ed

10. lu m reD orted in 2O v. Union others p a raq ra Dh Nos. t2, hereunder: "12. Despite being labelled as "pa t t-time workers,'i the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and cont nuous basis over extensive periods, rangin( from over a decade to nearly two decade:; Their engagement was not sporadic or terl porary an nature, instead, it was recurrent, - lgular, and akin to the responsibilities tr; pically associated with sanctioned posts' M(' eover, the respondents did not engage ant other personnel for these tasks durirr I appellants tenure, underscorinll the indispensable nature of their work' Ia 13. these were not u ar oosts lacks n th work oerfo rm ed the nature of d fundarr a ooella nts wa s oere nl the functionin o of the offices. The necessitates nature of these duties a n 1 :s that !:rat, as _ bv the 1 ntal to r:curring 9 SN, J wp 25570 2022 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 appeltrants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (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 the iudicia rv's role in rectifvinq fications a nd e workers receiv fair treatment. r!

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constiiutional 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" 10 S\J \\p l5:;(r lol: s r n n a a o a " irreg ular" nt uo ra o n n r r However, the laudable inl en insti: appointrr 3 nts. It cateqori callvhe ld that emolo e ; ln :d in g rved d .! ould _ one- nt of rtions Devi lt to )yees7 xplicit ron ls ;torts l tivelv g have s _ over the j udg rnent is being subverted wh icta to indiscriminate rely on its d claims of emPloYees, app ointments are not illegal, adherence to Procedural formalities. Gove - departments often cite the judgment in Unt' (supra) to arg regu la rization ex judgment's overlooking acknow ledg ment of cases where reg appropriate. indispe nsable e rende red decades. In light of these considerations' in our 27. opinion, it is imperative for gov(l nment dlpa.tmunts to lead by example in provirl ng fair and stable employment. Engaging worker; on a i".po.u.y basis for extended periods, e' )ecially whe'n tneir roles are integral to the organi :ation's functioning, not only contravenes inte|r ational labour standards but also exposes the orgit rization to legal challenges and undermines ern ployee mora-le. By ensuring fair empl( yment practices, government institution: can leduce the burden of unnecessary !ililation' promote job security, and uph:'l 1 .Ihe principles bf ;ustice and fairness ili t they are meant to embody. This approacr aligns with international standards and ;ets a positive precedent for the private se ctor to iollow, t-hereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the c )untry' SN, J wP _255't0 _2022

24. 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.lO.2OLB are quashed ; i:. The appellants shall be taken back on iuty forthwith and their services reoularised forthwith. the annclla fes all l{aurevc r 6t lre n entitled pecu n ta ry Lenellts/back waqes for the period thev have not worked for but would be entitled to contanuitv of services for the said oeriod and the same ulould be counted for their post- rqtirilbenefits." h n

11. ThlJudqment of the Apex Court dated 31.01.2025 reoorted in 2025 INSc t44 n "SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZILBAD", in particular, the relevant para Nos-15 to 19 are extracted hereunder: "15. ft is manifest thatlhe Appellant Workmen contanuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spannino n1o1g lhan a decade. Even if certain muster re not produced in full, the Emrloyet's failure to furnish such records- desoite directions to do so-allows an adverse under well-established nference tabour t2 SN. J wp 25570.2022 r r r r t iurisDruden ce. Indianl abour law stron e -w e r st nce w e I nat re. Mo a onoolno mun ioal g lv disfavors ; roements in l rmanent in fulfil u arementsv eat after vea r n not be dism lssed summ lv as - disoensable, e con ractor a aqreement. At this juncture, it would be lppropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinil( "temporary" enrployment practices as done by a recert judgement of this court an Jaggo v. Union of India r the followinq icu I rl n e s I paragraPhs: " 22 , The pervasive misuse of tempor3 -y employment contracts, as exemplified in this r:r se' reflects a broader systemic issue that acr ersely affects workers' rights and job security' n the private sector, the rise of the gig econom/ has led to an increase in precarious employmen': arrangements' often characterized by lack of benefi s' job securitY' and fair treatment' Such practi'l )s have been criticized for exploiting workers e r d undermintng labour standards- Goveinment institJ :ions' entrusted wrtfr upholding the principles of fairr:ss and justice' gl.eitel. responsibility to avoid such bear an exploitative employment practice'; When public sector entities engage in misus: of temporary contracts, it not oniy mitrors the d: :rlmental trends observed in the gig economy t) rt also sets a concerning precedentlhat can erodo public trust in governmental oPerations' is. tt it a disconcerting reality that temporary -mptoyees, particularly in governrr ent. institutions' often iace multifaceted forms of e) ploitation While the Foundational purpose of tempora'y contracts may have been to address short-term cr seasonal needs' "u"n l3 SN. J lrp 25i70 1022 they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in severa I ways: o Misuse of "Temporarv" Labels: Emolovees enqaqed for work that is essential, recurrinq, and inteqral to the functioninq of an institution are often labelled as "1srnp6761y" 9r "contractual," even when their roles mirror reqular emDlovees. Such those of misclassification deDrives workers of the diqnitv, securitv, and benefits that reqular emplovees are entitled to, despite oerforminq identica ! 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: Instrtutions 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 regu lar 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 l4 SN, J u,p]55't0-2022 decades. This lack of social security : and their families to undue hardship', cases of illness, retirement, c r circumstances." ubjects them especiallY in u nforeseen e EmPloyer's SonsequentlY, s with some )bly, this onlY /orkmen were :ertain status. tance of their r, it failed to ul back wages degree of stal:l torY violation

16. The High Court did acknowledge I t inability to justify these abrupt terminations it ordered re-engagement on daily wag( measure of parity in minimum pay' Regrett perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant \ left in a marginally improved yet still url' While the High Court recognized the imptt work and hinted at eventual regularizati') afford them continuity of service or meanin(l commensurate with the evident on record. 17. In light of these considerations, t le Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workrr en stands in violation of the most basic labour law prinr:i )les' Once it is inated without established that their services were terrr adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial re oaoed tn Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev wetl :rs cannot be e ent hile concerns !l/ ted o m J ,lia nce wlth of munici alb n _ iuch concerns C rv obli oatio ns do not a Indeed, 1ts. - fhe leqitimate ldu s h r etu lu e et an olve he ru le merl co e uita itat ns r e n r l5 SN, J wp 2i570 2022 riqhts of workmen who have served continuouslv in de facto reqular roles for an extended period,

18. The impuqned order of the Hiqh Court, to the extpntt hev ranf tn e tha Annella ntlr.r rkm an fo fr rfr rr daily-waqe enqaqement without continuitv or meaninqful back waqesis herebv set aside with the followinq 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. IL 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 oeriod of absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuitv of service and all consequential benefits, such as senioritv and eliqibilitv for Dromotions, 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. IV. The Resoondent Emolover is directed to initiate a fair and transDa rent Droce ss for 16 SN, J w_25510 2022 s aki I munici al req u la rizinq the AoDellant Workmr: r with rn stx months from the date of reinsta lment, dulv consid erino the fact that thev har,'r l oerformed Dermane nt Dosts. In assessino reoulari 3 ation, the Emolover shall not amDose ed g cationa! or Drocedural crit ria retroa ctivel reo u i rements were never aooli :d to the to simila {v situated ADDellan t Workmen or reqular emolovees in th Dast. Tg the extent that sanctioned vacancies for suctL duties exist or are reo uired the Resoonde nt Err oloyer shal! exoedite all necessarv adm inistrati e Dro to ensure these lonotime emolorr :es a indefinitelv retained on dailv waoe! contrarv to statutorv and eouitable norms, l \

19. In view of the above, the appeal(sl filed by the workmen are aiiowed, whereas the appeal(s t filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed." L2. The ADex Court in a iudoment reoortecl in (2O 17) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148, in State of Punia! and others vs Jaqi t Sinoh and others at Paras 54 and i s sub-oaras (1)(2)(3), of the said iudqment observed as t1 tder: "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, w1 upon the above controversy had concluded, I employees were not entitled to the minimum of t scale, merely for the reason, that the activities daily-wagers and regular employees were simila' however, made two exceptions. Temporary emtrtt in either of the two exceptions, were held entil I the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular r exceptions recorded by the full bench of the Hi1 impugned judgment are extracted hereunder: - le adjudicating \at temporary rc regular pay- carried on by The full bench tyees, who fell i to wages at mployees. The h Court in the t7 SN, J \up 25510.2022 "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (21 But if dailv waoers. ad hoc or contractual aooointees are not aD inted aoainst reoular osts and their services are availed sanctioned vvith notionel breaks- bv thc Stete continuousl Govemment or its instrumentalities for a SU c nt riod i.e. r wa e a hoc or contractual aDDoi, tees shall be entitled to minimum of the reqular oav scale without anv allowances on the assumDtion that work of Detennial nature is available and havino worked for an eouitable rioht is such lono oeriod of eir claim for created in such cateoorv of Dersons. reoularization - if anv. mav have to considered aratel tn |atmc laaallv lssible e (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 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 iudqment of the ADex Court reDort d in 2O1O(9) cra 247 b tween: St z}a t.rf llarazla ke and oth M.L.Kesari and others. in Darticular, oaras 4 to 9 reads as u nder: The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered 4. 10.4.2006 (reDOrted in 2006 G) SCC 7). In that case a ion BeJlch of this Court held that appointments made Cons 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, t8 SN, J wp _25570 _2022 regularization, or permanent continuance unlesli had been done in a regular mannerl in constitutional scheme; and that the courts mLr ensuring that they do not interfere unduly wit arrangement of its affairs by the State or its tr nor lend themselves to be instruments to faciliti,l of the constitutional and statutory mandates. 1l held that a temporary, contractual, casual : employee does not have a legal right to be n unless he had been appointed in terms of the rel adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the ConstitL however made one exception to the above ) same is extracted below : '.he recruitment terms of the t be careful in I the economic ;tru mentalities, ) the bypassing is Court further 'a daily-wage ade permanent 'vant rules or in :ion. This Court )sition and the ,_ .,! ,, I 2 I "53. One aso ect needs to be clarifiec There mav be ; (not illesal cases where irregular aooointmen appointments) as explained in S.l Na ravanaDDa Da 17972 (71 f7967 Ll) SCR 7281. R.N. Naniundi (4) SCC 5071 SEC 4091 and B,N. Naoaraian [797t and referred to in Dara 75 above, o duly oualified ':ts misht have Dersons in dulv sanctioned vacant Dt been made and the emolovees har continued to '! work for ten vears or more bt without the ,1 r of tribunals. intervention of orders of the courts The ouestion of reoularization of t_ rc services of such emplovees mav have to be :onsidered on merits in the lioht of the orincioles _;ettled by this Court in ffie cases abovereferred to i nd in the lisht of this iudoment, In that context. the Union of and their India. the State Governments instrumentalities should take steos I > reoularize as a one-time measure, the services of ;uch irreoularlv aDDointed, who have worked for tei- vears or more in dulv sanctioned posts but not l nder cover of orders of the courts or of tribuni ls and should further ensure that reqular re e'uitments are ulldertaken to fill those vacant s,! rctioned posts that require to be filled up, irt cases where em D lovees or dailv wat ers are beinq temDora now em Dlo ved. The orocess must tr set in motion within six months from this date. .... "5. It is evident from the above that thtr : is an exception to the general principles against 'regularizat r n' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfillad : t9 SN, J wp _25510 _2022 (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 70 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular, madevi ca u n Govemment or instrumentalitv, to take steDs to he services of I, a m without the benefit or Drotection of anv interim orders of cou rts or trihuna s asao nc-l,,,,e ,,p,asure- U, atlcwi directed that such one-time measure m 'st be set in motion within s x mon ths from the date f iE decision red on 7O.4,20O6).

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 depaftment or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casuat, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of cou rts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instru mentalities did not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the 20 SN. I \P 25570 2022 one-time exercise excluding several entt 'loYees from consideration either on the ground that their cas'?; were pending in cou rts or due to sheer oversight. In such circ''mstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered ,r terms of Para 53 of the decision in umadevi, will not lose tk )ir right to be considered for regularization, merely becaus,: the one-time exercise was completed without considering t letr cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should cor;ider all daily' wage/adhoc/those employees who had put r 10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2O06 withort availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or -t 'bunals. If any employer had hetd the one-time exercise in tenr s of para 53 of umadevi, but did not consider the cases of sonte :mployees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umade t i, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise v'ttl be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled t be considered in terms of Para 53 of llmadevi, are so consider,: t. 8. The obiect behind the said direction t 1 para 53 of at those who have Dut in more than ten vears of conl', TUOUS SerVtCe without the Drotection of anv interim ordcys of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in madevi d, are considered for reqularizat;r n in view of th t the their lon s departments/instrumentalities do not t\rpetuate the for lono Deriods and thctt oeriodicallv reoula rize them on the oround that thev Ir tve served for an ten vears, therebv defeatina th ? constitutional or statutorv Drovisions relatino to re< ruitmeut and e dire< y ion is that all aDDointm t. The true effect of rked for more than tn vears as on 70.4.2006 (the date of decision in Umade ! il without the n of anv interim order of anv cout1 or tribunal. in VAEADL Dosts, Dossessin a the reou isite org t lification. are entitled to be considered for reoularizatio L, The fact that the emolover has not undertaken sut t exercise of n within six months of t z decision ,n r that such exercise was und 'taken onlv in ill not sidered fo reoularizatton service. Second of empla ,nq Dersons reoard to a limited few, is two- fold. First is to ensure lt the riqht to be to €ori, r'€ who have -wa e a tsentitl s til i 1 s t 2t SN, J wp_25570 2022 in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measute.

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

70. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of tJmadevi, 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 daily wage/casua l/ad - hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of 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 requirements of Para 53 of umadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten Years service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of thetr appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. L4. h d ment of t A x Court in Nih and others v. State of Puniab reoorted in 2013) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It held that the mere fact 22 \rP 25570 2022 that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the :reation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authority of the Stal:r r, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but ch ose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary, It als( refused to at th ere were no san e ioned oosts acceDt the defence and so there was iustification for the St !:e to utilise services of larqe number of DeoDle like the ;I lDellants for decades. It held that "sanctioned Dosts do ro ll fr m heaven" and that the State has to creat3 them bv a conscious choice on the basis of some ration,r assessment of need. Referrinq to Umadevi, it held that t e aoDellants 1 before them were not arbitrar ilv chosen their initial appointment was not an'irreoular' aooointrr n asl had been made in accordance wtth the statut() 'v proced u re orescribed under th Police Act. 1861. ar d the Sta cannot be heard to v that thev are not e ntitled to l) SN, J w 255m:2122 e o e eso the a basis as, accordino to it, their appointments were Durelv temDorary and not aqainst any sanctioned posts created bv the State. It was held that the iudqment in Umadevi cannot become a licence for exploitation bv the State and its instrumentalities and neither the Government of Puniab nor those public sector Banks can continue sucha oractice inconsistent with their oblioation to function in accordance with the Constitution.

15. The iudqment of the Apex Court reported in 2O15 SCC Onlile SC 1797 beLween B.Sriniyasulu and others v Nellore Municioal Corporation Rep.bv its Commissioner, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh and others, in particular oaras 7 and 8 ads as under: k ht of the a (7) We find it difficult to accep t the reasoninq adoDted bv the H flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994. The aooellant have been in service of the first respondent not gnly orior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subseeuent to the issue of G.O. t.ill todav. 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 24 SN. J \l! 25570_2022 circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying he order under appeal by directing that the appellants' service: be regularised with effect from the date of their completinC their five year continuous service as was laid down by this ( ourt in District Coltector/Cha irperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh t Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 480,

16. In Amark nt Rai v State of Bihar reoo r ed 2015 scc 265, the Suoreme Court held that ''l re objective behind the exception carved out an this case v ras to permit regularization of such appointment, which tre irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointment ;, which are irregular but not illegal, and to e nsu rc securi tv of emplovment of those Dersons who had ser v ed the State Governmen t and their instrumen lities for rr ore than ten lor 29 vears. ears", In that c This decision aDoroves earli r view e (oressed in was workin M.L.Kesari extracted a

17. In State of Jarkh nd v Kamal p;ss3rJ re (20L41 7 SCC 223, similar view was tE ken Dylte e o Suoreme Court and it was held as follows : "41.... In view of the catesorieal,tiadioq_: t fact on the relevant contentious issue that the resDon(l_ rnt emplovees han 70 vears have continued in their service far lDore laid down bv the leaal orinciolt continuouslv therefo this Coarrt in Umadevi case (State of Karna ,ka v Umadevi 'a 53 squarelv Bench of the aoplies to the orese t cases. The Divisio 4SCC7 73 at ; L i 25 SN, J \rp 25570 2022 Hioh Court has riohtlv eld that the resDondent interfered with bv this Court." r he relie the a

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.27602 ot 2O19 which pertains to regularazataon 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 ol 2O23 dated 10.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.

19. The iud ment of the Apex Court in Hari Krish na Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others re Dorted in AIR 2O2O Suoreme Court 3969 and in Darticular oara Nos.lOO and 1O 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 ra ub has fail d to exercise or has wronqlv xercised discretion co ferred uoon it bv a stat ute. or a rule, or a Dolicv ecision of the Government or has exercised fide, or on irrelevant such discretion mala consideration. heG )6 SN. J \r,p 25570 2012

101. In all such cases, the High Court must i;sue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel Jrr rrformance in an appropriate and lawful manner of t le discretion conferred upon the Government or a public z r thority. "

20. The Division Bench of th ou rt in il s Judoment passed in dated 10.o6.20 ot 2OL2 while uoholdin o the Judom nt dateg O8.O9.2O1O oassed in w.P.N o.24377 of 2OO7 and c.c.N .48 of 2OO8 W.A.Nos,782 of )1O and 854 2 ( observed as u nd er: - "Further, it is manifest from the material on ecord that the services of the similarly placed persons who apl) oached the law Courts were regularized. The appellant-Corpo r,: ion also issued varrous office orders/circu lars dated 20.12.79t 9, 11.09.1992, 06.1O-2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for -' gularization of casual/contract employees, It ls also to be seen hat Section 25- T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice b y any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for : uch a long and contrnuous period of time on casual basis is nc -hing but unfatr labour practice attracting the provisions of Sel ion 25-T of the ID Act The learned Single Judge while relying 'n the decisions of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respon,J Ints aTe entitled to reg.rlanzation as directed in the impugneJ orders, as the learned single Judge considered all the aspect:; :f the mat[er in detarl, in the proper perspective, which, in oul :onsidered view does not warrant interference in these appeals. " 2L. The Division Bench of this Court in ts Judoment dated 19.09.20 L7 oassed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2OL7 report.gd in 2O18(2)ALD oaoe 282 at oara l1 i and oara 18 observ a s under:- 27 SN. J wp _25 510 _2022 "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 22.4.7994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time a bsorption/regula rization 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. 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 regu larization/a bsorption exist. IOO1I d^ n^i wh f+la 100 n G.O. Ms. No.212 l'lia aniula Bashini's case (sup ra ), does not lower the traiectorv of the directions issued bv the in Para 53 of its iudqment in Uma Devi's If f h resoondents to take shetter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. wn i he width a n / e n,r0 rrarrrriccihla se su ra\ fnr. ,, i N 2 2

2.4.L994 re ulariza the Detitioners, who have admittedlv, satisfied the wn in Para No.53 of the iud oment in Uma criteria !a Devi's case (suora).

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.20L7, in OA No.1442 of 2OL4, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and tha wrri fra+iti.rrr allowed w resoondents to consider reoularisation of the services of the oetitioners aqainst the existino vacancies of Work I f tn m the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the iudqment in Uma Devi's case (supta) . This orocess must be comoleted within two months from the date of receiot of a coov of this order." ect to their ecti n h a f

22. Divi ion B ourt in i Jud m dated 21.O4.2O2O passed in I .A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 28 SN, J W]5570_2022 and W.P,No .23057 of 2O19 reDorted in 2020 4)ALD 379 at aras 45, 48 and oara 50 obse ed as ! nder:- "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have tr, en working on daily rrrage since 1990 and have put in almosit (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum ime-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously v orking without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till dal :' 4a. It is not known whv the 1s res DOtI rrent has not in Uma Devi's cat;r r (suora). as followe d the decisio exola i ned in M.L. Kesari's case (su ra) anr! undertaken a f dailv waqe the list one-t rme exercise of oren !:n (1O) vears emolovees who had worked for more than urts and ' [ 'ibunals as on without the intervention of the 1 ification as to them to a Dr cess vc [(J.4.2006 and subie L rt posts and thev are workino aoainst vaci whether r.! ts, and if so, ualifica C reqularize their services,

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.20L9 passed by the 1st resp( ndent rejecting rvices on one- the cases of petrtioners for regularization of s;t rd vlolative of time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary e of India; the Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitutior resDon ents are direct ed to reoularize on ( ne-time basis Detitioners ' services from the d te each of he Detitioners I comolete 1o vears of service n dailv w E ges from the initial dates of their aooointme nt. But. thr2 r shall not be relaef. The saide ( rrcise shall be entitled to an v moneta r done within two (2) weeks f the date of receiDt of o of th r. 23, This Court o D r nes that in the Dres(.l rt case, the respondents failed to discharqe their dutv _ n examtnlno the request of the oetitioner for reou arization Detitioner's services , who is workin o s full I ime sweeper a and fur her to consi r his re dtf e r t l:l re tem ora rv 29 SN. J wp 25-570,2022 servace of the oetitioner in t e last orade oost of full s reoular one for sweeoer qrade oav wath oeriodical increment revised from time to ll ourooses bv qra ntino last time fro the date of aDDoa ntment of the Detitioner, in accordance to law.

24. This Co rt oDines that oetitioner is entitled for consideration of Detitioner's ca se for qrant of the relief as rit Petition in vi w of the oraved for in the oresent observati ns of the ADex Court in various i udoments bove) and the vi w of the (referred to and extracted Division Ben ch of this Court in the Judoments referred to and extracted above.

25. Takinq into consider ation: - a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standang 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: i0 SN, J wp-25570 _2022 i)(2020) l scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Pase 396 (iia) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scc247 (vii) (2O13) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC 1797 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 Scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ol 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiia) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(a)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in w.A.Nos.782 of 2ol.l I and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the ludgment dat(: I 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.lto.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.272L7 of 20:L z (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 21.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in L of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2O1-9 (referred to and extr': cted above). 3l SN. J wp _2557 0_2022 9) In the light of discussaon and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order. The Writ Petataon is a! lowed. the oetitioner is the claim f the oetitio er for directe d to Dut-fort u la riz t o the t titioner s f oetitioner in the last orade oost of continoent Sweeper as reqular one for all DurDoses bv qrantino last qrade oav with oeriodical incre ents revised f m time to time from the date of aDDoantment of the Detitioner and all conseoue tial benefits, du enclosino all th releva nt documents in suooort of oetitioner's case as o t-forth in the o resent writ Detition. within a oeriod of on e O1) week from the date of receiot of coov of the orde r and the resDondents shal I examine and nsider the same rn accorda n e to law. in confor itv with orincioles of natural iustice bv orovidinq an oooo unitv of oersonal earino to the petitioner, L1 terms of orders Dassed by the Supreme Court in ma Devi's case reDorted in 2006(4) S C Paqe 1, the iudom ent oassed in W.P.No,24377 oJ 2OO7 dated O8.O9.2O1O re orted in 2011 (1) ALD. Pa e 234 and as ) I 32 SN, J \tp 255'tO ?022 confi rmed in W.A.N 0.782 ol 2O1O da l 1O., 6.201 also as oer Division Benc h ludqment of this Court dated oo I reoorted in 19.O9 ,2017 Dassed in W.P.N o 27217 ot 2 20LA(2 ALD Daoe 242 and also the Di' I sion Bench Judqm nt of this C urt dated 2t .O4.2O2( Dassed in s.1 of 202Oin 1 of 2O19 in W.P.No.2 1Os7 of 2OL9 reDorted in 2O2O(4) LD oaoe 379 which lrad a f recei within a period of four (O4) weeks rd er dul c f I 'om the date takinq anto conside ration the observations and the law _ aid down bv the A x Court in the various iudome nts ( rr: 'erred to and above), and in particu lar. oara {0.53 of tLe extract iudqme nt of the ADex Court in t e casr: of S te of Karnataka v, lJma Devi and dulv coml lunicate the shall be no decision to the Detitioner. Howeve r, the r order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, tt Petition, shall stand closed. any, pendin 3 in this Writ sd/-A.rT I-I.;. GOWRI SHANKAR SS ISTANT REGISTRAR t I One fair copy to THE HoN'BLE MRS JUSTICE\ljfl :PALLI NANDA (For Her LordshiP's Kind Perusel l I J //TRUE COPY// i secnol oFFtcER To,

1. 11 L.R. CoPies. 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia' lrilinistry of La '1 Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi'

3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Coun Buildings, Hyderabad T.S.,Hyderabad Telanoana. Telanqana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

4. ihe Pri-niip;l Secretary, Panchayalhraj Department, Telangana Secretariat, 5. The Princioal Secretarv, Finance and Planning Department, Govt of 6. Tfre. district Colleitor, (Panchayat), a'nd Chairman of Minimum Wages - I . iie, Zrt'ta Praja Parishad, Suryapet District, Rep. by its Chief Executive g. ine-ManOat Development Officer, Mandal Praja Parishad, Chilkur Mandal, Committee and District'selectioh Committee, Suryapet District. Officer- Suryapet District Hyderabad [OUT]

9. On6 CC to SRl. CH GANESH Advocate [OPUC] ib. i*o Ccs to GP FoR SERVICES I, Higti Court for the State of Telangana, at r r . tivo-cbs to' cP FoR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (TG) ,High Court for r z.iwo-cG io op rbn Fli\iANCE AND PLANNING, High Court for the state of ,t3.One iC to SRI, KATTA PIIADEEP REDDY, SC FOR TS ZILLA Telangana, al Hyderabad [OUT] the State of Telangana [OUT'I PARISHADSIOPUC]

14.Two CD Copies I I BM PMK CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:2410712025 ) .f itr ii4 /.- ) ,\) ORDER WP.No.25570 ot 2022 : (; _i- 2 4 0t[ 2[25 ') .k '' . .. _.. - .i; ..A_:a \_l.i;.\..::l ^- "< :::_:::::,-.5-' ,i ... ,. .i' a ( ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITI. OUT COSTS