Civil Appeal No. 1254 of 2018 · The High Court · 2025

Order

Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned Standing Counsel for ZPP & MPP appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 and 5.

2. The oetitioner aooroache th e Court seekin o Draver as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in the last grade post for continuously working till date in temporary post of last grade in contingent establishment on compassionate grounds from 22-11-1993 nor regularizing his services even on completion of 28 long years service by not extending the last grade pay benefits with periodical increments from time to time with eFfect from 22-11-1993 to till date from time to time with arrears as per GO Ms.No. 687 dated 03-10-1977 to till date is highly unjust and unfair as per Article 14, t6,21,39 (d) 43 and 300 (A) of Constitution of India by subjecting petitioner for exploitative enslavement due to his helpless conditions of poverty, poor social, economical and political background by taking it as advantage by the 4 SN.J wp 25611,2022 respondents in continuing her on pittance wages of Rs.4000/- p.m. and prays to direct the respondent herein to treat the temporarv services of oetitioner in the last grade post oF sweeper as regular one for all purposes by granting last grade pay with periodical increment revised from time to time from the date of appointment of the petitioner for working 28 long years without any service progress with 100 o/o compensation on arrears of pay as per the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 34L6-3445 of 2010 dated 19-O2-20L9 in the case of Union of India Vs. Avtar Chand (2019 3 ALD SC 32) and in the case of prem Singh Vs. State of UP and Batch cases (reported in 2019 10 SCC 516 in paras 36 and 37), in the case of Netram Sahu Vs. State of Chattisgarh and Anr. in Civil Appeal No.1254 of 2018 dated 23-03-2018, followed by DB Orders issued in the case of Kadar Basha in Wp No. 26788 of 2017 dated 10-08-2017 (DB) with cost by applying aforesaid principle laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 141 of our Constitution and pass....." 3 L arned c nsel a oDea rtnd on behalf of the OU ra al itioner n n the av r fidavit fi dinsu of the de in th etitio e IN rv ces rende b Detitioner with the resoondents herein for more than a Detitio ner is entitled for the decade contends that elief as ed for in the P ERUSED TH E RECORD:- DISCUSSI ON AND CONCLU SION:- 5 SN,J wP_25617 ]022

4. Learned counsel aoDearinq on behalf of etiti n n the case ls souarelv covered bv eorder o this Court, dated t o8.O9.2 1O oassed in o w.p,N o .24377 of 2Oo7r oorted in

2011(1) ALD Paqe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No. 782 of 2O1O. dated 10.O6.2O13 and also order, dated 19.o9.20L7 oassed in W.P. No.27217 of 2Ol7 reDorted in 2018 (2) ALD Paoe 282 and also the order dated 21.O4.2 O2O oassed in W.P.No.23O57 of 2O 19 re DO ed in 2O2 o 4 ALD Paoe 379. ) (

5. Lear ed standino counsel aDDearino on behalf of the respondent No.4 submits that the orievance of the ras u f ition had no n Wri P been addressed to the re sDo dents herern as o n date and therefore the oetitroner can ot comDl ain inaction on the oart of resoondents herein in considerino the o rieva nce of the oetitioner and h ence t he relief as oraved for bv the etition r n tbe ra nte Mandamus can be s ued aoainst the resoondents and no hereunder as souoht foran dt d irected ODU t-forth the netitaon er's o rleVance as Dut- forth in the orese nt Wri tP tition ner ma bv wa VO detailed c nat f o h t 6 SN,J wp-256t7 2022 e re o recer Dt of the said re Dresentation the resDOndents would consider the same tn ccordance to law within a n , rea son a b!e oeriod.

6. Learned counsel aooeaflno on behalf of the oetit oner oes no s ute the s ubmission ma e learn sta nd i n o counsel aooearrn on behalf of the resoondent o No.4

7. The A Dex Court in the ud ment re rted in (2020) 1 scc ( L&S) in Prem Sin o h v State of Uttar Pradesh and DO I othe rs at Dara 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 Iaid 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 ti-eated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference 7 SN,J wp 25617 2022 in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the reqular establishment and the services rendered bv them riqht from the dav thev entered the work-charoedesta bli hment shall be counted as s oual fvtno servrce for DurDose of oension." 8 The A Dex Cou ln the se of Dharwad District PWD Literate Dail v Wa o eEm lo ees Association Vs. Sta eof D v t Karnataka reoorted in 199O( ) SCC Paqe 396 laid Drinciole that the State should not keeD a Derson in temoorarv or adhoc service for lonq Deraod and have to treat such oersons as reqular one,

9. Para No.53 of the of the iudqment of the Aoex Court n the State of Karn ataka and others Vs- Umadevi- dated

10.04.2006 reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 is extracted hereunder:- "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There mav be cases where irreoular aDDointments (not illeoal appointments) as explained an S.V. Naravanappa 11967 (1) SCR 128L R.N. Naniundaooa 11972 (1) caa 4no'l scc 5n7 I and refered to in DA f a 15 above, of dulv oualified narcon c tn rlrrlw sa nctioned a aa nf narsts mi hthd 2 v been made and the emnlovees have continued to h i nterven tion of ord ersof the courts or of tribunals. The question of reqularization of the services of such d B.N. Na ar an ork for L979 4\ n I 8 SN,J wp 25617 2022 th e m lo a n he orincioles settled bv th Court in the the lioht of t lioht of this cases a bove referred to and in iudqment. In that context, the Un on of India, the State Govern ments and their instrumentalities shou ld take ste D s to reo u la rize as a one-time mea su re the services of such irreoularlv a oointed, who have worked for ten vears or mor in dulv sa nctioned oosts but not under cove of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that reoular recruitments are und ertaken to fill those vaca nt sanctioned Dosts th be filled uo. ln cases where temDorarv em D lovees or dailv waoers are beino now emoloved The Drocess must be set in motion within six mont hsfrom this date. .... at reo r I

10. The ud ment of the A Dex Court dated 20.t2.2024, reDorted in 2O24 LawSuit(sc) 1209 in la Anita and others v Union of India and others. and the relevant DaraoraDh Nos.12. 13 24 26,27 and 28 are extracted hereu nder: "12. Despite being labelled as "part-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. 9 SN,J wpJ256t7 ]022 n f

13. The claim bv the resDondents that these were not reqular oosts lacks merit, as the nature of the work oerformed bv the aooellants was oerennial and fundamental to of the offi The recurring h nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts. irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

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 certaln 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 iudiciary's role in rectifvinq such misclassifications and ensurino that workers receive fair treatment. 10 SN,J wp 25611 2022 ''irregular"

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to cuftail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" appointments. It cateqoricallv held that emplovees in irreqular aDoointments, who were enqaqed in dulv sanctioned Dosts and had served continuously for more than ten vears 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 indiscrim inately 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 tor temporary employees, judgment's explicit overlooking the acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective aoplication distorts the iudqment's spirit and Durpose, effectivelv weaponizinq it aqainst employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.

27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale, By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, n SN,J w:256t7 2022 promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. 28 In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 . lO.2Ol8 are quashed ; t la nts lbe k on du ll. forthwith and their servlces forthwith. q u !a rised shall n tbe However, the aooellan entitl ed Decu rarv benefits/back waoes for the oeriod have not worked for but w uld bee ntitled to conti nuitv of servrces the said oeriod and the same wouldbec ounted f'or their st- retiral bene ts." o

11. The Judo ment of the Aoex 31.ot.202s reDorted in 20 25 INSC144in" SHRTPAL AND ANOTH ER v. urt da NAG R NIGAM, GHAZIABAD". para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder: in oarticular. the releva nt "15. It is manifest that the Aooel lant Wor ervrces over se inuouslv rendered their h a era! l2 SN,.I $,p 25617 2022 r It t ablished we l-est U rnlsh su over,s failure to Even if certa rn mu ster rolls were otDrod uced in f ull, ords- the E des Dite di recti ns trl do qat-allowGA na dvF rse bo u r inferen ce i u risorud ence. ndian labour law stronolv disfa vors oerI) ual dailv -waoe or contractual enoaoemen tsln circums tances where th work ls Derm anent nature. Morallv and le allv. workers who fulfil o ar after vear onootn o munr cioal reoulremen ca n not be dismis d summarilv as disoe nsable, pa rticu la rlvinth e absence of a oenui ne 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 oi this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs: e s "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government lnstitutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices' When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. l3 SN,J w_2561'1-022

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 maniiest in several ways: a s a e d m or des ite titled reoula r emolov ees. re ul La S:E "Tem rar w r hat i and tnteo ral to the fun !ontn of an institu tion "contractual," even when their roles mirror Such mlsclass ification deorlves worke e identical tasks. . Arbitra ry Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notlce, 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 counterpa rts, despite their contributions being equally significant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasing ly resort to outsourcing roles performed by te-mporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This prictice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates 14 SN,J \tt, -2561i 2022 a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular emPloYment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary are often denied fundamental benefits "rnpioy""t 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. L7. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles' Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U P' Industrial thevwe enoaqed in Disputes Act, 1947, and that thes wor ers ann tbe r uncertai ntv. While concern s lia ce with t releqated of muni DCTD etua I n l5 rul m t h a olv o n t rkm w oh or ne SN,J wp 256t7 _2022 id ra ron n s o lem ts. rum th d Ind n r 1 h m h conf e e A n of eH h t u n of I ath h f a followi odi ctio s: I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen,s services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.p. Industrial Disputes Act, 7947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts aktn to the duties they previous ly performed) withi n four weeks from the date of this judgment. Th r ll be rom e em t IN Ire n n n s I r III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entifled to 50olo of the back'wages from the date of their discontinuation until their l6 Sr-.J wp_2561? 2022 actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from thc date of their reinstatement. n t e h ent Em t IV The Res re u la rizi nqth e AoD ellant Workmen wath rn slx months fr mt munlcl a reqularization, the In assessinq p ts. r er hall not m c Em if such retroactivelv criteria procedural to the nev r aD olied re urrem ents were AP ella nt Workmen orto sim ila rlv situa ted ee en re ular m that sa nctioned vacanc ies for such duties exist or are reouired the esDo dent EmDIover shall x e otrme emolovees arc not to en o indefi 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." e all neces e su re r a ve roce To r a s

12. The A oex Court in a iudoment reDorted in (20 17) 1 a do h r rem Court Case Pun 1 v Ja 1 2 ln h ndo h r s n s b- of th said u n r "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating uDon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary Zipbys"t were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay- icile,'*erety for the reason, that the activities carried on by iily'-*ug"r' und regular employees were similar' The full bench t7 SN,J wp]56t'|]022 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 Couft 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 dailv waoe ad hoc or contractual aooointees are not aDDointed aoainst reoular sanctioned Dosts and their services are availed continuouslv, with notional breaks, bv the state Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient lonq period i.e. for 70 vears, such dailv waqers, ad hoc or contractual aDDointees shall be en it,led to minimum of the reoular Dav scale without anv allowances on the assumotion that work at such lono oeriod of time, an eouitable riqht is created in such cateoorv of DE rsons. Their c m for reoularization. if anv. m have to be conside red seDaratelv in terms of leoallv oermissible scheme. vailable and havin worked rennial t (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 Aoex Court reported in 2O1O(9) f Karnataka and others v SCC 247 between: State M.L.Kesari and others. in Da r DA ras4to9reads u nder:

4. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered In that case. a on 10.4.2O06 (reoorted in 2O06 Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made SCC 1 18 SN,J \vp 25617 _2022 Dect n eeds to be cleri without following the due process or the rules retating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re- engagement nor make their service permanenL and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be carefut in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentatities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daity-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 76 of the Constitution, This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : ,,53 One as There mav he cases lvhere irreoular DDointments (n illeqa i ADD ointments) as eXDlained in S.V. Naravana ooa .N. SCC 4O9l and B.N. Nasaraian [7979G)S soTl and referred to in oara 75 above. of dulv dualified ersons i een mad work for ten veais or more but wit out the interv ention of orders of the courB or of tribunals. such emplovees mav have to be considered on merits in the lioht of the orrnct ,es sett ed bv this Court n the cases bovereferred to and in t.'he lisht of this iudoment. In t'hat context- the Union of the Sta te Governmen fs an Indi,a. tn strumenta lit ies should take s to requlallze as a one-ti e measure, the ularlv for ten vears or more who have wor, a DDOtn tn dulv sanctioned oosts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals an should further ensure that oular rectuitm nfs are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that reouire to be filled uo. i.n cases where r I sanction ai the em aac E mi. ve con rvices of such 67 7 s rs are em lo ulariz, vqaaa* 79 2A e a 19 SN,J wp-256t7 ]022 now emDloved, The o within six months from this da te. must be set in motion "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against ' regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (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. to take instrumenteIItv. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illega!, 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) Umad.evi casts a dutv uDon e concerned s Ds to Government ot reoularize the services of those iffeoularlv aooointed for more than ten vears emolovees who had se without the benefito f Dro tect,Ionof anv tn fl m orders of courts or tribuna ls. as a one-time measure. Umadevi- directed that such one-time measure m 5t be set ,n motion within six months from the date f its decision rendered on 7 4 6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normallY mean that after the decision in lJmadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services. 20 SN,J \yp 2561'1 2022

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 instrumentalities did not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undeftook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of lJmadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily- wage/ad hoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 5j of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned shcu!d ccnsider their cases also, as a ccntinuatian of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered.

8. The obiect behind the said direction in oara 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure that those who ut in mo ra *6n v6,rc of co ithout th n interim o tribunals. before the date of decision in Umadevi wa.s are considered for reoularization in view of rendere their lon rvice. Second ,s to ensure that the deDa rtments / ,n strumentalities do not rDetuate the Dractice of emolovino Dersons on dailv-waoe/ad- hoc / casual for lono oeriods and then oeriodicallv reoularize the on the oround that thev have served for more than ten vears, therebv defeatino the constitutional or st,atutorv Drovisions relatino to tecruitment and ADDointm en The true effect of the direction is that all oersons who have worked for more than ten vears as on 70.4. 2006 the date of decision in Umadevi) without the tection of an tn rt se stn sidered for u reoularization. The fact that entitled to be con aalian f 2l SN,J w]56t12022 thee Dlo such e'xercise of reoularizatio n urith n srx mdnths of the decision in r k, , has not unde was unde n m in terms of the above directions i.n Umadevi as a o e-time measuie.

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

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only fufther 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 daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) futfilt the requirements mentioned in para 53 of lJmadevi. If they futfi them, their services have to be regularized, If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 7 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 regutarised. 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 appeat is disposed of accordingly.

14. fn the I udoment fo the DEx Cou rt tn Ni al Sinoh and others v. Stateo fP un Iabr eDo in( 2013 14 SCC ) 65, the Supreme Court consadered the case of absorptaon of Specaal Polace Officers appointed by the State, whose 22 SN,J \yP_25617 _2022 wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It hetd that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. 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, ats action is arbitrary.Ital so refusedto acceot the defence that there were no sa nctioned Dosts r rvl G"i + here was irral. ification for t1r6 C+t+6 to rr+:l servaces of Iaroe number of eoole like the aDD llants for It held that "sanctioned oosts do not fall from decade heaven" and that the State has to create them bva h ba sis m r ional ass t R ferrin h m were n ta bi held that the a lla nt the r initia r chosen intmen n a ular'a ointmen been made in accordance with the statutorv rocedure 23 SN,J w]s6t1 2022 nracfr ibed under the Police i-t 1861 +he Gl'afa cannot be heard to sa that th re not enti edto absorbed into the se rvt ces of the State on ermanent basis as. accor d TNoto t-t h e tr aooointments we re ourelv temoorarv and not aoaanst anv sanctioned Dosts created bv the State. It was hel that the iudoment in Umadevi cannot becom a ti cence for exDloitation bv the Statea nd its instrumentaliti esa nd neither the Government of Puniab nor thoseD ublic r Banks can contin UE such a ractice inconsistent with their Ii ation ton I ccordance with th n titution

15. The iudomen to t heA Dex Court re f orted in 2O15 SCC Online SC t797 Jretween B.Sri nivasul and others v Nellore Munici Dal Cor oration Reo bv its Com lss oner D Di stri A dhra Prade h n oth paras 7 and 8 reads as under: t e a DT) ella nts to seek re h (7) We find it difficu lt to ac,ceDt the reasonino adooted bv the oUIarization Hioh Court. The rioh flows from the G.O. No.272 dated 22.4.7994 The aooellant have been in service of the first resDondent not onlv Drior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subseouent to the issue of The respondent Municipality being a statutory by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years body is obliged mentioned G.O. .o. till t *-.- 24 SN,J \vp 25617 ]022 without regularising the service of the appeltants 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 appettants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' senrices be regutarised with effect from the date of their compteting their five year continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (B) SCC 480.

16. rnAm rka nt Rai v tate of Bih ar 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 to ensure securitv of emnlo ment of those oers(ln s who had served the Sta te Government and their i nstru menta I ities for more than ten vea rs". In that case, emDlovee was workino for 2 vea rs. a DDroves earlier viewex ressed in o This decision M.L.Kesari extracted above. L7. I State of Jarkhand v KamaI Prasad reoorted in ( 20L4 7SC ?)) s! lrt flar view s taken hrr 3 \ Supreme Court and it was held as follows : l\ SN,J wp 256t7 2022 "47.... In view of the cateqorical findinq of fact on the relevant contentious issue that the resnondent emDlovees have continued in their ser continuouslv therefore. t,he leoal nrinciole laid down bv this Court in Umadevi case (stete of Karnataka v Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 7 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 73) at para 53 souarelv aoolies to the Dresent cases. The Division Bench of the Hiqh Court has riohtlv held that the resDondent emDlovees are entitled for the relief, the same cannot be interfered with bv this Court." an 70 for mo re th

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.276O2 of 2O19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2023 dated 1O.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.

19. The iudqment of the ADex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Mah e ras h r and Others re DOrted t a in AIR 2O2O Suoreme Court 3969 a D a rticula r Da ra 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 ower where the Governme has failed to exercise or has wronqlv exercised blic authori r 26 SN,J \\P 25617 2022 discretion conferred u Don it bV a ool rc d EC to conside ration. tas atut , or a rule, or exercrse d a s rnalafi de- or on irrelevant eGovern ment or .l scretion

101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority."

20. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment d ated 10. 6.2 o13 as t 2OL2 w ile u hol D sed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2o 1 and 854 he Jud ment da 20L Dassed in W.P.No .24377 o O7 and C.C.No.4 of 20oa served der: - "Further, it is manifest from the material on record that the services of the similarly placed persons who approached the law Courts were regularized. The a ppella nt-Corporatio n also issued varlous office o rders/circu lars dated 20.12.1989, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for regularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25- T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or workman, As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for such a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of Section 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respondents are entitled to regularization as directed in the impugned orders, as the learned single Judge considered all the aspects of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals." 2L. The Division Bench of this €ourt in its Judqment dated L9.O9.2OL7 Dassed in w .P.N o-27 2L 7 of 2OL7 27 SN,J ltp]5617 ]022 reDorted in 2018( 2 )A D naoe 2 82a Dara 16 and a18 r 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 22.4.1994, 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/reg u la riza tion 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.L994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgmenl 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/absorption exist. re. Act 2 of 1 I 4 1OO andG _o M s No.212 dated Ther .lown fha wt.lt h a nd the 22.4.L994 iudqm nt an Maniula Bash ini's case (suora). does not lnurar +lr A f its case ( uora)- It is. t here ore. not oerm issible for the f ru nder resDon ents o take G.O. 212 n o ed the admittedlv. satisfi itio ners. wh No. 53 of the udoment in Uma I ct 2ot L994 and .! tw hittla the o criteria Ialdd ovv n inP Devi's case (suora), br, De in Par m c ^ fth h e ra +i-i^-+^-r, m n

22. n t

18. For the aforementioned reasons. order, dated 27.6.2017, in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside h n t t n n n e tn th n Par a xistin tr at f n res s h criter d Devi's ca e su m n hs fr this order." 28 SN,J wp-25617 2022

22. The Divisio nB enc n th is Court in its -Iu oment dated 21. 04.2 o2o Dassedi n I.A. Nos 1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W.P. No.23O5 7 of 2OL9 reDorted in 2O2O(4)ALD Daqe 379 at Daras 4 5, 48 and oara 50 observed as u n der: - "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of servlce 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 as not followed the de ision in U a Devi's case (su or ), as o ne-ti m e exercrse of DreDa rrno the list of dail waqe emolo vees who ad worked for more th n ten ( lO) vears withou t the interventi on of the Cou and Tribuna sason 1O.4.2006 and su biect them a Drocess verification as to whether thev a workino aoainst vacant oosts and tion t e resDondent and un sess r .L. K la in n reqular ize their servrces.

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respondent rele-ting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 76 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the resD ondents are d re ed to reo ul a rtze on one- ime basis r h initial dates of their aoDoint ment. But, thev shall not be entitled to anv monetarv relief. The said exercis e shal! be done within two (2) weeks from the date of receiDt of e es fr f the o t rder. "

23. This Court ooines that in the Dresent case, the s on nts f ed to ischa ln ex mt I { 29 of the rre u wh ts ln as fu SN,J etp_25617 2022 n h r to consider uest to I e n service of the oetitioner in the last rade oost of full sweeDer as reoular one for all DurDoses bv qra ntino last qrade oav with oeriodical in rement revised from time to m e date intment o itioner accordance to law. is enti led for t 24. This Co rt o D tnes that Detitioner consideration of oetitioner's case for qrant of the relief as t Petition rtt vt wof +lra observati ns of the Aoex Court in various i udoments bove) and the vi w of the (referred to and extracted t h ari war{ n i Division Bench of this Court in the Judoments referred to and extracted above.

25. Takino into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 30 SN,J wp-25617 2022 c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: i)(202o) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 395 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 201o(9) sCC247 (vii) (2013) 14SCC 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (2O1s) I SCc 26s (x) (2oL4) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2O24 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 SCc 1 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dated OB.O9.2O1O 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.272L7 ot 2O17 (referred to and extracted above), 31 SN.J wp.2561't 2022 f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 ot 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2OA9 (referred to and extracted above). g) In the tight 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 oeti on erl s directed to out-forth the claim of the Detittoner for req ularization of Detitioner's servrc es. and also the cl arrn tf h +ioner to treat the ora r oetitioner in the last orade o st of Sweeoer as ular one for all Durposes bv orantino last qrade oav with oeriodical tncremen s revised from time to time from the date of aooointment f the Det t Io benefits, dulv enclosin o a I and all conse the relevant doc me nts in ouential of petitioner's case as DU -forth in the resent n wt ana eriod o o 1 w lr mt date of recei ot of coov of th e ord er and the resDondents shall examine and conside r the same rn accorda nce to law, in conformitv with orincioles of natural nralvttl tn ttl no rtrtort r rn ih-r af ne fG n I hearin iustice by l^ 32 SN,J w]s6t1 J022 tion r r s of orders m Court in Um a Devi'scase renorted in 2OO5 4)scCPa e1o the iudo men in W.P 377 ot 2OO7 dated .N .24 t D d the Su Judqment of

08.o9 .2O1O re oo edi n2O 1 1 ALD Paoe 234 and as ) con rmed in W.A.No.742 of 2O1O dated 10 .06.201 . and also as Der Division Ben ch j udo ment of this Court dated 19.O9.201 7 oassed tn W.P.No.27217 ot 20O7 reoo din aoe282a nd also the Division Bench 2018(2) ALD this Court dated 2t.o4.20 20 Dassed in I.A.N s.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 in W .P.No.23O 57 ot 2OL9 reported in 2020(4)ALD oaoe 379 which had attained within a Deraod of four (O4) weeks from the date finali of receiDt of a coDv of t is order. dulv takin q into consr eration the observations and the law laid down bv the A ex Cou rt IN the var ous iudome nts (referred to and and in oarticular. extra ed abo ve ra No.53 of the ) iudoment of the Aoex Court in the case of Ka rnata v. Um Devi an e on to the oetitioner. However. t ere shall be no omm unicate d dul decisi te of a order astocosts. JJ SN,J wp 25617 2022 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, sha Il stand closed. //rRUE coPY// SdI- P.C.SU LE KH A_D-EVI ASSISTAN',REGISTRAR / . effoxoFFtcER One fair copy to THE HON'BLE MRS' JUSTICE SU'REPALLI NANDA (For Her LordshiP's Kind Perusal) To, I +lj t^n? t""r"trry, union o[ tndia, Ministry or Law' Justice and - ComPanY Affairs' New Delhi' Advocates Association Library' High Court 3. The Secret"V' f "''ngul" Buildings, Hyderab-ad n^-^h-r,,rhrri Deoartment, Telangana 4 The Principal Secretary' Panchayathral Del ;1lm**ui*,rgtu:I#;$**,u'*ll'uu,*'';.::: i. p;iti$.35i?ff"b!ff3#[,:a'f; t?"'H?J' state or re ansana ,,,' S*'t";"f$ifuilnoeeP REDDY KArrA' sc FoR zPP AND wrPP 'n" toPUCl

12. Two CD Coples B N/I BSR &- HIGH COURT DATED:05lOBt2025 |ts,= o o ( * 'r HES Iiq (v .C).\ 1 I flAt'l 2026 * o.. PAI'C ORDER WP.No.25617 of 2022 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 7:'' JKt-\'l*