N. Papaiah v. 7,/

2011(1) ALD, Paoe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2010, dated 10. O5.2O13 and also order, dated 1 .o9.2fJL7 Dassed in W.P.No.272L7 ot 2Ot7 reDorted in 2O1 A (2) ALD Paqe 282 and also the order, dated 21.O4. 2O2O oassed in W.P.No.23O57 of 2019 reported in 2O2O(4) ALD Page 379' t Learn otl rnzlinzr aarr ela 6riaarirta n c 'ha h a tf rsif th No.4 n Detitioner as Dut-forth in the Dresent Writ Petition had not to the resoondents herein s on date and therefo itioner cannot comDlaan inaction on the '7 SN. J part of resoondents herein in considerinq the 9 rievance of as orave for bv the Detitio e a nd he nce, thereli tioner intheo resent Wit oetition ca not be q ra nted Deti r d u nder as sou o !espendeltE oht for and he oetitiorr:r mav be rce a out- r! n reD senta ion to the resoonde ts he P n _ and uoon aDt ol ider the same ina ccorda ncetol id reo resentatron, he res DOrr rlents would alr, within a reaso nable oeriod, Lear ned cou nsel aooearinq on behalf oft t EDetitioner 5 does not disoute the said ubmission mad eb the learned sel a ooeari oonb ehalf of tht: resoondent standi nq coun No.4 7 The scc (L&S) Aoex Court in t e iudq ent reDorted in (20 20) 1 .l:tradesh and Sinq v Sta ofU ar in Pre o oth rs, at oara36h ld as under: "36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the serv c -'s for 30- I lnnuated' 40-or more years whereas they have been.sup€ As they have worked in the work-charged est'l 'lishment, { ( . -. i._;.r 8 SN. J r not against any pa have been regulari and even as per Karnataka versus U their services ought to rticular Project, zed under the G overnment instructions the decision of this Court in State of madevi (3)11. rh'rs Court in the said ecover o e an en yea rsw ou ren ere the services be Court's iiider,' as one-tinie measure, re9 ularized of such emPloyees. In the facts of the case, those emP loyees who have worked for ten Years or more should have been regula rized. It woul d not be Proper to regulate them for conside ration of regu larization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be it is made clear that treated as a reg ular one. However, they shall not be entitled to claiming anY dues of difference inwages 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 r m t e h r h I n 8 The ex o rt in th 5e of D arwa d r n in 9 o o n e s P 3 v Pw D t r t r r nl have to t oc servlce for on Derl od and oersons as' reoular one' PAra No .53 of the of th I 9 m nt of th A D h o K n a 6r 4s c hereunder:- 9 XSN, J 1 n n v (not ns in dul R 128 R.N. Nan "53. One asoect n eds to be clarified. l'here mav be cases where irre ular aooointmentr illeqal aooointments) as exolained in S.V. _.Naravanapoa , )a f1972 (Ll SCC 4O9I and B.N. Naoaraian [1979 4) SCc 5071 and referred to n Dara 15 above. of Iulv qualified .s miqht have been made and the emolovees have contin ued to rs or more but without the work for ten v intervention of orders of the courts o r of tribunals. The question of reoularization of the sr1 'vices of such emolovees mav have to be considerer! on merits in the lioht of th e Drincioles settled bv th!i; Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the lioht f this iudqment. In that context, the Union_ .of India, the inr,l Governmen .rumentalities to reqularize a!; a one-time should take steD measure. the services of such irreq ular lv aopointed, who have worked for ten vears or lnore in dulv sanctioned oosts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should furthG.r ensure that reoular recruitme ts are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned osts that reouire t<, be filled up, in cases whe re temDorarv emolovees o1. dailv waoers are beino now emD loved. The orocess r rust be set in motion within six months from thas dat E ,-..rr. h lr n

10. The iudqment of t e ADex Couft daterl 20.L2.2024, reoorted in 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 1209 in Jat1ro Anita and others v. Union of India and others, and the releva nt 24,26,27 and 28 ilre extracted oaraoraoh Nos.12. 1 hereunder: "12. Despite being labelled as "par':-time workersr" the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and conti ruous ( 10 SN, J basis over extensive periods, ranging from decade to nearlv two decades' Their ;;;;. engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrentt regular' and akan to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts' Moreover' the respondents did not engige- any other peisonnef for these tasks during the appetlants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work'

13. h h Th t n t t h o d w nn la necessitates n! of he The recu rring nature of these duties classification as regul ar 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 service s. This act of outsourcing, which effectivelY rePlace d one set of workers with another further unders cores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasiona

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 fict, common-law employees and were erttitled 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 11 SN, J of avoiding payment of employee benefits tlereby increasing their profits. This judgment uodr; -sssrsg the principle that the nature of thr: work to the 9ne( worker, should determine em ployment sta rs and the corresponding rights and benef S. It :ifvi no 11 n "irregular"

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor ,rntries and ensure appoi ntments adhered to constil rtional principles, it is regrettable that its principl rs are often misinte rpreted or misapplied to legitimate clai ms of long serving em ploye(I ThiS judgment aimed to distinguish between , legal" appointr 1ents. rs tn {ed in ilrved r !; rould for re e . one- time measure. However, the laudable in.r r:nt of the judgment is being subverted when instit rtions rely on its dicta to indiscriminatel y rejec,: the claims of employees, even in cases wherr-. their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Gover r ment departm ents often cite the judgment in Uma Devi to argue that no vested riglt to (supra) regularization - exists for temporary em p[:,yees, overlooking judgment's rplicit e: ackn owledg where regulariza: r)n tS appropriate lroIts _ lave a n d d s.

27.. In light of these considerations, ir our opinion, it is imperative for govern nent f( 12 SN, J departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workeis 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 expcises the orgahization 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 internationa! 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; u d The ao ellants shall be taken lt. nd their dutv forthwith back on services reqularised forthwith. However, the aooellants sh ll not be benefits/ back waoes for the oeriod thev hav not worked for ut would be entitled to continuitv services for the id oeriod and he same would be counted for their oost- retiral nefits." n

11. l3 44 n" H SN, J u i 31.O 1.20 25 o di 2 5I s PA A E NAGARNIGAM GHAZIABAD" nDa rticular os. 1 L d e d NO ER leva nt Ila rrtw orkmen _DVer several tha n a decade. r duced infu ll, :h records- an adverse labo ur s lr a a A h their se som mes sDan nInq m '15. I nti uo slv render v rs, ve if rt n r e m o es te di en e n r u n r u !! d r n f s -a! il- r w ce. In an a Deroetual dailv-waoe or n ctrcumsta nce w er ork ts D( n tu re. Morallv a d leo llv. workers I Ilv disfavo aoements in rmanent in ho fulfi! after vear l lispensable. I r'r i| contractor a reem ent. At this juncture, it would be ,t)propriate to recall the broader critique of . indefinite ,.temporary,, employment practices as done by a recent..lr.rdgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in he following paragraphs: in th a ed s m e t e "22. The pervasive mi:-!s9 of temporaqr emptoyment contracts, as exemplified in this casr, reflects a broader systemic issue that aOvei,ety affects workers, rights and. job security. tn tfre private sector, the rise of the gig economy l- t s led to an increase in precarious emptoyment ur. ing"runtr, r @ t4 SN. J 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 gieater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practicgs. 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 6rode public trust in governmental operations.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: reoular o Misuse "Temoorarv" Labels: Emplovees enoaqed fo work that as essentia!, recurrinq, and inteoral to the functionino of an institution led as m t en their roles mirror "contractual." even those of emolovees. Such misclassification deor ves workers of the dionitv, securitv, and benefits that reoular emplovees are entitled to, despite performino 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 ot 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 15 SN, J development, promotions, or incremt: rtal pay raises. They remain stagnant in their rol ls, creating a systemic disparity between them an j their regular counterparts, despite their contr.i:utions being equally significant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shiek: : Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing rolt:; performed by temporary employees, effectively rep lacing one set of exploited ',vorkers with another. Tt is prictice not only perpetuates exploitation but alsc demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the ob i,Tation to offer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Bener,i :s: Temporary employees are often denied fundarr ental benefits such as pension, provident fund, herirlth insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security rsubjects them and their families to undue hardshi,t especially in cases of illness, retirement, o unforeseen circumstances. "

16. The High Court did acknowledge 1:l,e Employer,s inability to justify these abrupt terminations Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wag( s with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettrbly, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant V,rorkmen were Ieft in a marginally improved yet still unt,3rtain status. While the High Court recognized the impor ance of their work and hinted at eventual regularizaticr, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningl rl back wages commensurate with the degree of statu ory violation evident on record. 17. In light of these discontinuation of the considerations, tlt,) Appellant Workme r Employer's stands in t 16 SN, J 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, L947, and.that thev Were enoaoed in essential, oerennial duties, these workers cannot be releqated to Deroetua! uncertaintv. W ile concerns nlc! a! bu liance wi recruitment rules merit consideration. such concerns do not absolve the Emolover of statutorv obliqations or neoate fndeed, itim tla equitable entitlemen ts. the I ucratic limitation c -t rr rtrl+ +rrrrirr riqhts of workmen who h ve served continuouslv in de facto reqular roles for an extended Deriod.

18. The imouoned order of the Hiqh Court. to the extent thev confine the Aooellant Workmen to future dailv-waoe enoaoement without continuitv or meaninoful back waoes. is 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, 1947, is declared illegal. AIL 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) 17 SN, J a within four weeks from the date oi this judgment. 1lm the date of tnent) shallbe a nd all counted for continuitv ofse I lrtc conseque ntial benefits such as m n Ifi. Considering the length of servic€ , the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of he back wages from the date of their discontinu;rr ion until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within thrr: : mont'hs from the date of their reinstatement. enrorr d on sf m tI erin th a I DErennial municioal d uties akin o I In DOsts. asses st no : E oloversh lln criteri a re uire ents were never AoDella tw rkme reqular emol vees in the oast. 'I that sanction dva nctes for ucl IV. The Res ndent Em Dlover ! r directed to in itiate afa tr and tra nsDarenl: D rocess for requlari eAo oella nt Workmen within stx ent,me d ulv h ,te erfo rmed ermanent D ron, €rl ucational or DOSe it such troa ivrl lv aorr ied to the tos mililrlv situated D the extent duties exist molover shall ve rocesses ,ees are not scontra cedu ral reo lar o D a e 19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(: ) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed.,, L2. Th s e Aoex Court ln a r dq ment reDo rte(I in (2OL7 )1 of un I ra dot hers Ca u ( ( 18 SN, J vs Jaqiit Sinoh and others at Paras 54 and its sub-paras (1)(2X3), of the said iudqment observed as under: "54 "The Full Bench of the High Cou rt, 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 reasont 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 equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. 2 But if dail wa aaoointees are not aDDointed aqainst reqular ir services are availed sanctioned Dosts and continuou.'slv- with notional hreeks- hv the S/,efe Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient ts- such dailv waders- ad lona oeriod i.e. for 7O s shall be e titled n minimum of the reoular oav scale without anv assum tion tha work o oerennial nature is availa Ie and havina worked for such lono oeriod of time, an eauitable rioht is created in such cateqorv of personsTTheir claim for reqularization, if anv, mav have to be considered seoaratelv In terms of allv oermissible scheme. n n I L (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 70 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. s 247 n n A ex Court re te of k h rsv 19 SN, J M.L. Kesari and oth ers, in oarticular. oaras 4_llo 9 reads as u nder: ) SCC 1)

4. The de 'sion in State of Karnataka v. Umad:i was rendered on 10.4.2006 (reoorted in 2006 Inlbat case, a Constitut on Bench of this Coutt held that app lintments made without following the due process or the rL les relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, reguG.ization or re- engagement nor make their service permanetl , and the High Court tn exercise of jurisdiction under Art,tte 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue direction: for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unles:; the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts m,t;t be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly wtt r the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its tr stru mentalities, &e of the constitutional and statutory mandates. T is Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual t- a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be tr ade permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the reh'vant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constit t'..ion. This Court however made one exception to the above p Bition and the same is extracted below : t il arcl3g'-ryri'j:? :., -.- : -..:: j -..., ade and "53. One asDect s to be c, rified,There mav be cases where irreqular aooointmenil:;: (not illeaal a?pointments) as exolained in S.V,_ Naravanappa f7967 (7) SCR 7281. R.N. NaniundaEpa 17972 itl SCC.4O9l and B.N. Nagaruian It97e_Ht SCC SOT| and referred to in oara 7i above. di'_dutv auatifiec! oersons in dulv sanctioned vacant oo 1ts mioht have e emolovee's have continued to work for ten but witho t the tion of rs of the tts n" of tr. unals. The auestion of of tt e serv ulariza such emDlovees mav have to be onsidered on the lioht of the D rincioles merifs ettl,ed bv this Court in the cases abovereferred to a'1d in the tioht of this iudoment. In that context. _tihe tlnion of the State Governments and India. instrumentalities should take steos tr2 reoularize as a one- measure, the s ces of s g 'ch irregularlv appointed, who have worked for ten I 'ears or e s 1 i { ( 20 SN, J rtaken in dulv sanctioned oosts but not under cover of otders of the courts or of tribunals and should nts are further ensure that t emolovees or dailv waoers are beino temDora now emoloved. The orocess must be set in motion with,n si months from this date. .... ular recrui filled ?,a ha ,rira fi, n "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the generat principtes against ' regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fu[fille:d : (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 emptoyed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. vernm t ot (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegat, 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. (iii) Umadevi casfs a dutv uDon e concerned instrumentaliti. to teke steDs to the services of those irreaularlv aDDointed reoula emolovees w. o had served for more an ten vears without the b nefit or Drotection of anv interim orders of courts or tribunals. as a one-time mea suie, Umadevi- moti,on within six months from the date of ( rendered on 7O.4.2OOO\. 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 instrumentatity should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a tist of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of coufts and measure m decision 2l SN, J tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts rnd possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.

7. At the end of six months from the dat? of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/<:r sual employees were still pending before Courts. Conseq tently, several departments and instru mentalities did not cont nence the one- time regularization process. On the othe, hand, some Government departments or instrumenta litie:; undertook the one-time exercise excluding several et ployees from consideration either on the ground that their ca:;,,s were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such cit umstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered t t terms of para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose :,.eir right to be considered for regularization, merely becaust the one-time exercise was completed without considering heir cases, or because the six month period mentioned in pare 53 of lJmadevi has expired. The one-tine exercise should cot;sider att daity- wage/adhoc/those emplayees-who had put it 10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 withoL: availing the protection of any interim orders of cou rts or t-ibunats. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terlts of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of LJmad<l i, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise tv tl be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled :t, be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so consident, t. two- the said

8. The obiect behin n tq Dara 53 of is to ens re .Chat those who Umadevi is fold. n ten vears f conti,luous servrce have out ,n mote the orotection of anv inte m ordet :; of courts or tribuna ls, before the date of dec ton tn _lUmadevi was rendered. are considered for reoularizdtic_,n in view of L .re that the departmenElinstrumentalities do not pe,rpetuate the no Dersons on cl,tilv-wa qe/ad- Dra hoc/casual for long oeriods and the,1 oeriodicallv reoularize them on the around that thev hA ve served for more than ten vears. therebv defeatinq the Eon stitu or statutorv Dtovisions relatinq to re<t u ent and appointment. The true effect of the direcll)on is that alt Dersonsw 'l years as on o have worked for m ore than of .emD , { c ,,// 22 SN, J s 7O.4.2OOG fthe date of decision in Umadevi) without the orotection of anv interim order of anv couri Or tribunal. in vacent Dosts- ,rrr-ssessirrd the reou oualifica lian- ere entitled to be considered for reoularization. The fact that the emDtover has not undertaken such exercise of onths of the decision in reoularization within six Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken onlv in neaard to a limited few. will noc disent.'itle such sidered for reoularization emDlovees. the riaht to be in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure.

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

10. The Division Bench of the High Couft has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with taw. 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 whethgr there are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfrll 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 undeftaken 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 thre.e months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of Llmadevi, 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 their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. L4. nt in Nih I Sin re orted in 2013 14 SC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption fP \ I 23 SN. J of Special police Officers appointed by ther State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose rtisposat their services were made availabte. It held that ;:he mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did rrr,t render the appellants 'employees. of those Banklr since the appointment was. made by the State anrll disciptinary control vested with the State. It held that th( creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadr,e is a matter exclusively within the authority of the St:r,re, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but r: rose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It aftil refused to r:tionedD sts t e and so there was iustificati nfo the servtces of larqen mber of te to utili se Dle -like t e E.ppellants for a d e a c them b C t1 m a aL_asEcsslltcEl of eed. eferrino to Umad before t e m ere nota mentw snot an'ir AD oint vt- at held th ari I v cho en. at tlre ADDellants their initial 3ntas ith ad ntn! u lar' ADDOI / 24 SN, J been made in accordance with the statutorv Drocedure orescribed under the Police Act, 1861, and the State cannot be heard to sav that thev are not entitled to be absorbed into the services of the State on Dermanent basis as, accordinq to it, their aDDointments were Durelv temDorarv and not aqainst nv sanctioned Dosts created bv the State. It was held that the iudqment in lJnnadevi cannot become a licence for exDloitation bv the State and its instrumenta lities and neither the Government of Puniab nor those oublic sec r Banks can continue such a practice inconsistent with their oblioation to function in accordance with the Constitution.

15. The iudqment of the Aoex Court reDorted in 2O15 SCC Online SC L797 between B.Sri n vasulu and others v Nellore Munidi oal Corooration Reo.bv its Commissioner, Nellore Distri Andhra Pradesh and others ln oa rticula r paras 7 and 8 reads as under: (7) We find it difficult to acceDt the reason no adooted bv the Hioh Court. The rioht of the a oellants to seek reoularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.7994 The aDDellant have been in service of the first resDondent not onlv orio'r to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subsequent to the issue of G.O. til today, 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 25 SN, J without regularising the service of the appellan s and continued to extract work from the appellants.

8. In the circumstances, refusing the bene;'it of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appe'lints approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not iustified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifyinq the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' service :; be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous service as was laid down by this iourt in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh ,l Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 480,

16. In AmarkantRa IV Stafa nf Bih 'ted (201s) I SCC 255. the Suoreme Court held that '"he objective behind the exception carved out in this case ,,vas to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illega!, and to ensure appointmen':s, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensur,g security of emolovment of those Dersons who had ser ,red the State Government and their instrumentalities for rnore than ten vears". In that case, emoloyee was workinrg for 29 vears. This decision aDDroves earlier view (,xDressed in M.L.Kesari e racted above. t7- rns te of .Iarkhand v K mal Prasarl reoo t (20t4) 7 scc 223_ r vtew was simil a rken bv the ed in Supteme Court and it was held as follows : "47..., In v,ew of th relevant n tentious issu 'ical findino of fact on the at the resDon I 'ent em lovees I / I ,.,/ / I 26 SN, J the leoa re than 7 in Umadevi case aontin uclw thcrcfo this Cou (2006) 4 SCC aDDlies to the Dresent cases. The Division Be Hiah Court has riohtlv held that t, titled JaI arnnlattaac intertered with bv this Court." id down bv tate of Karnataka Umadevi : 2006 SCC ft&9 731 at oara 53 sauarelv of the resDondent ?ha same 'inciole I ft taliaC =ta n

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2,2O22 passed in W.P,No.276O2 ot 2O19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2023 dated 1O.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated 09,O8.2024 in SLP No.32847 ol 2024.

19. The i ud ment of the Aoex Court in Hari Krishna o Mandir Trust V. State of Mah rashtra and Others reoorted in AIR 2O2O SuDreme Court 3969 and in o6rticular Dara 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 has failed to exercise or has wronqlv exercised discretion conferred uDon bv a statute, or a rule, or a Dolicv decision of the Governm ent or has exercised re the Governm n lic a h 27 SN, J co nsid rati n. m a frf, n irrelevant

101. .In all suclr cases, the High Court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel 1:rerformance in an appropriate and lawful manner of r:he discretion conferred upon the Government or a public r uthority.,,

20. The Division Benchof ln j rts Judqment dated 10.06.2013 oassed in W.A.Nos.7B2 of ! o o and 854 of o1 whi eu ol n t o8.o .20 o e t2 o7 C.Nrtr.4 of o8 s P o.2 77 observed as under:- -re "Further, it is manifest from the material on record that the services of the similarly placed persons who a jp r racnea the law Courts were regularized. The appella nt_Co.po?i i o-n also issued y9.i9_rr_ office orders/circutars dated 20.12.1sif i rr.Og.rSgZ, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2OOg fo. ,lr l",ization of casual/contract emproyees, Itls arso to be seen i iat section zs- T of the ID Act prohibits unfair_labour practrc; t; iny emptoyer or workman. As can be seen from the factual icenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for st ih a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is not ring but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of S".li ln ZS_f of tf," l? jo . r he tearned Single Judge while relying or the decisions or rne Apex court, righuy herd that the responderr,ts are entifled to regularization as directed in the impu!neO .,iOers, as the f.::d singte Judge considered alf tfre aslZlts o tlhe mater in oetar, rn the proper perspective, which, in our r:.nsidered view ooes not warrant interference in these appeals.,, 2L. T t D B n 2 7 a d w.P. 27 1:: udqm ent i' of 20L7 t 28 SN, J reoorted in 2O18(2)ALD Daoe 282 at Dara 16 and Dara 18 observed as under:- "16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout ' the country under Artiale 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212. dated 22.4.1994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice.of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through bdck doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to publlc posts, consciously ordered for one-time absorption/reg u la 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 reg u la rization/a bsorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 10 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated not whittle down the idth and the 22.4.1994. d iudgment in Man&Ia Basfirni's case (suora), does not lower the tr iectorv of the directions issued bv the in Para 53 of its iuddment an Uma Devi's SuDreme Cou su ra \ If resDondents to take shelter under Act 2 ot L994 and G.O. Ms. No.212. ated 22,4.1994, to denv reqularizataon to t h criteria'laid down in Para No.53 of the iudsment in Uma Devi's ca who ht va ermt rcrc lr a :drni++a;llrr Cai cfiad (suora). rra+ifi^116 iharafara f^r c

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2Ot7, in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and +ha r^,ri+ ha+ ition iG2 wi+h +h6 ,li aati,rrr f,r f h resDondents to consider reoularisation of the services of the Detitioners aqainst the existino vacancies of Work Insoectors and aoDoint them subiect to their satisfvinq h Uma Deyi's case (supra). This process must be completed date of receiDt of a coDv of within two months from the this order." ria laid d wninP Nr m 29 SN, J

22. T Div ton its Judom ent da d 2L.o4.20 2O oassed in f.A.Nos.1 of 2021 ll in lof2 o19 Court !n s !l(4)ALD oaoe a 5 4 n o "45. Therc is no dispute that petitioners have L een working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almos:: 1:O; yea.-s of service by now. They have been given minimunr time_scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously r iorting without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till d.: e. as _,rnder:- a e t w L. t m evi' s r ( I dent has not l (suora), as un ertak na f dailv waoe ren (1O) vears "ibunals as on ification as to [t posts and ts. and if so,

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; orders dated 20.8.201 9 passed by the 1st resp,l the cases of petitione rs for regularization of s: time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary alt Articles 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution DEtitioners's rvlces fro the date ach o comolete1 se tce nd a copv of the order.,, the impugned ldent rejecting vices on one- ,d violative of ,:f India; th€ re-time basis re oetitioners iles-AsrE_lhe shall not be rcise shall be ,of receipt of s e

23. o e o I t r II d I examininq I r lil rization of 30 SN, J who i w kin and further to co sider his r r uest to t at the tem orarv service of the oe itioner in t e last orad oost of full time r all era r !m sw u lar n orade av with oeriodical incremen revised rom f e from acco rdance to law.

24. This ourt opines that oetitioner is entitled for consideration of etitioner's case for orant of the re!ief as nt Wri of th observa tions of the ADex Court in various iudqments tion in vi to an h Divisio Bench of this Court in the udqments ref rred to and extra d above. 25- Takino int consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner ani, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 I 31 SN, J c) The observations of the Apex Court ir the various judgments (referred to and extracted abor,,l) and again enlisted below: i)(2020) 1 scc (L&s) (ia) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (aii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2O24 La.wSuit(SC) 1209 (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 5s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC 1797 (ix) (2o1s) 8 sCC 26s (x) (2oL4)7 scc223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 SCc 1 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, Page234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O20(a)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this ilourt dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 ot 2O10 and 8S4 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment daterl OB.O9.2O1O passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.Nrl. 8 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this )ourt dated L9.O9.2017 passed in W.P.No.272L7 ot 201:, (referred to and extracted above), 32 SN, J f) The Divasion Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l ot 2O2Q in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 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 ofthe present order. The Writ Petition is allowed, the Detitioner is directed to Dut-forth the claim of the oetitioner for reqularization of oetitioner's services, and also the claim of the Detitioner to treat the temDorarv services of the petitioner in the last orade post of Sweeper as reoular one for all DurDoses by qrantinq last qrade pay with periodlcal increments revised from ti e to time from the date of aooointment of the oetiti ner and all conseouential benefits, dulv enclosinq all the relevant documents in suooort of oetitioner's case as put-forth in the Dresent writ net t ton wlth n a l,erl of one [O1) rrreek frorn the date of receiDt of coDv of the order and the resoondents shall examine and consider the same in accordance to law, in conformiW with orincioles of natural iustice bv hearino to the oooortunitv of oersonal providinq an J' SN, J Detiti ner, in terins of orders oass bv the S Dreme U cou rt tn ma Devi's case reDo the ludqme t oass in W. in 2Oo6(.l.l SCC Paqe 1, 4377 oI 2007 dated P.No.2 t A Cou 011 .o9.2 Ore Judqment of thi Pa t:l 2 4 and as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 10. 06.201 3, and a lso as oer Division Bench Jud o ment of thi Cou L9.O9.2017 Dassedin W.P.No.27217 ot 20( 'tl f Dorted 2018(2)ALD Dao 2A2 and also the Dirrisi nBe nch 2L.O4 .20i!-) passed in ot2 I 9inW.P.No.2 io57 of 2019 "om the date _rad attained his order, dulv taki I.A.Nos.1 of 20 Oin reDorted in 2O2O (4)ALD Daoe 379 w fin litv, w hinao eriod of four tO4) w ks of receiotof a coDvof considerati on the observ tions and the law aid down bv the Aoex court n thevet tousr udoments re I erred to and lar. oara llo.53 of the e se of State of Karnataka v. Um aDevta nd dulv comly unicate the decision to the _ shall be no titioner. However. there the Apex Court ). andino racted abo in the articu e t order as to costs. j'-=:' . :: : :n = J 34 SN, J Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/.B. REKHA RANI ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S TION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTICE SURE ALLI NANDA (For Her Ladyshlps Kind Perusal) To,

1. 11 LR CoPies. 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

4. The Principal Secretary, Panchayathraj Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

5. The Principal Secretary, Finance & Planning Department, Govt' of Telangana, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

6. The District Collector (Panchayat), and Chairman of Minimum Wages Committee and Distriit Selection Committee, Suryapet District' 7. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Suryapet District' B. The Mandal Development Officer, Mandal Praja Parishad, Nereducherla Mandal, SuryaPet District.

9. One CC to SRI CH GANESH, Advocate [OPUC] 1 0.Two CCs to GP FoR SERVICES-Il, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad . [OUT]

11. One CC io SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, SC FOR ZPP MPP IOPUC]

12.Two CD Copies PMK BS N/ HIGH COURT i]C TODAY DATED:1610712025 --a a .I ) O rE 1 c * t)_ 'lr ORDER WP.No.25750 of 2022 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS {, \b Y/