9olla Mallaiah v. unconstitutiona by subjecting the

Order

Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitaoner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Servaces-Il, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.l to 3 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, tearned Standing Counsel for appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 & 5.

2. The oetitioner aporoached the Court seekinq oraver as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner nor granting last grade time scale benefits to petitioner even after working on full time basis from 35 long years in the contingent post without any service progress by paying pittance wage of Rs.4000/ per month by denying him to pay legitimate or living wages in violation of provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 Equal Remuneration Act 1976 and Article 14, L6, 2L, 39(d), 43, 300(A) of our Constitution and not implementing Govt Orders issued in G.O'Ms.No'193 GAD dated 14.03.1990 and subsequent Govt Orders by the I 4 SN, J

respondent Chief Executive Officers as unjust unfair totally illegal and unconstitutional by subjecting the petitioner for exploitative enslavement due to his helplessness conditions of poverty poor social ecc'nomical political background by taking it as advantage by the respondents and prays to direct the respondents herein to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in last grade post from the date of initial appointment by applying the decision and principle laid by the Honble Apex Court in the case of prem Singh Vs State of U.P (2019 (1) SCC 516) and Division Bench of thi:; Honble Court in W.p. No. 33936 of 2011 and Batch Ca:;es dated 02.05.2018 (2020 (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) followed by decision of the Honble High Court of A.p in W.,4. No. 483 of 2021 dated 05.08.2021 based on prilciple laid by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 1214 of 2018 Apex Court dated 23.03.2018 to reckon contingent services of petitioner for computation of qualifying service to grant of pension gratuity and other retirement benefits by releasing consequential monetary the last grade post including periodical benefits in as revised from time to time with 100 increments perrcentage compensation as per principle laid by Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs Avtar Chand in C.l\.No 34t6-3445 of 2O1O and Batch Cases ctated t9.02.2ot9 (ALD 3 of 2Ot9 SC 32) by applying the afcrresaid princr-ples and decisions of the honble Apex Court and Division Benches under Article 141 of our 5 SN, J constitution by this Honble court in the case of petitioner and Pass...". 4, : i € 6 SN, J

5. Learned standinq counsel aooearino on behalf of the resDondent No.4 submits that the orievance of the oetitioner as out-forth in the oresent Writ Petition had not been addre to the resDondents herein s on date and +h +ha 6afili.r n r nrri aarrrnlrirt in.aali n part of resoondents herean in co nsiderinq the qrievance of the_oelitioner and hence, the relief as oraved for by the oetitioner in the oresent Wit oetition cannot be qranted and no Mandamus can be issued aoainst the respondents hereunder as souqht for and the Detitaoner mav be d irecte to out-forth the Detit on r's orievance as out- forth in the Dresent Writ Petition bywavofad etailed reoresentataon to the respondents herein and upon receipt of the saad representation, the resDondents would consider the same in accordance to taw. within a reasonable oeriod.

6. Learned counsel ao earinq on behalf of the o tioner does not disoute the said submission made bv the learned StEllldino counsel apoearino on behatf of the respondent No.4 7 SN, J

7. The ADex Court an the iud ment reoorted in (2O20) 1 SCC (L&S) in Prem Sinqh v State of ljttar Pradesh and others, at oara 36 held as under: "36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30- 40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the reoular establishment and the seruices rendered bv them riqht f m the dav thev entered the work-charoed establishment shall be counted as oualifvino service for Duroose of oension." a. The Aoex Court in the case of Dharwa District PWD Literate Dailv Waoe Emoloyees Association Vs. State of l(rrnrfrla ran r.iad in I OOn/ 2\ Gl^l^ Drrra ?O lrilf rr.inr. It that the State should not keeo a oerson in temoorarv or *:/_ 8 SN, J adhoc service for lono oeriod and have to treat such Dersons as reqular one. O Drrr No. q ? af ilra nf flra irrrfa m n a ArtaY artr. F+ an the State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadeva, dated 1O.O4.2OO6 reoorted in (2OO6) 4 SCC 1 is extracted hereunder:- "53. One asDect needs to be clarified. The mav be cases where irreoular aDDointments (not illeqal apooantments) as explained in S.V. Naravanappa 11967 (1) SCR 1281, R.N. Naniundaooa 11972 (1) SCC 4O9l and B.N. Naqaraian 11979 (4) SCC 5O7I and referred to in para 15 above, of dulv oualified p been maOe ana tne emo work for ten vears or more but without the The ouestion of reoularization of the services of such emDlovees may have to considered on merits in sases abovereferred iudoment. In that context. the Union of Indaa, the State Covernments an should take steos to reoularize as a one-time measu re, the services of such irreqularlv aooointed, who ave worked for ten vea or more in dulv r n courts or of tribunats and should further ensure that geoular recruitments are undertaken to fill those n I I 9 SN, J

10. The iudoment of the ADex Court dated 20.12.2024, in Jaooo Anita and reoorted in 2O24 La Suit(SC) 12 others v. Union of India and oth rs, and the Daraqraoh Nos.12 L3, 24, 6.27 and 28 are ext levant hereu nder: "12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workersr" the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. 13. The claim bv the resoondents that these were not reqular oosts lacks merit, as the nature of the work oerformed bv the apoellants was perennaal and fundamental to the functionino of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled' It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor ocgasional. l0 SN, J

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 e:<ample from the private sector, illu strating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providi ng benefits. In this case Microsoft classified certain workers as inde pendent contractors, thereby denying them employee b,:nefits. The U,S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were,lo farct, common-law employees and were entitle dto the same benefits as regular em ployees. The Court n,cted that large Corporations have increasingly a,Jopted the practice of hiring temporary enployees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefi ts thereby tncreas ing their profits. This judgment un derscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine em ployment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It I h n n n h n n While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) 26. sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appoint ments adhered to constitutional it is regrettable that its princi ples are principles, often misi nterpreted or misapplied to deny lelgitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between ,'illegal" appointments. "irregular" emDlovees However, the laudable intent of tlre judgment is being subverted when institutions r,ely on its dicta to indiscrimina tely reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their 1l SN, J appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, judgment's explicit overlooking the acknowledgment of cases where regularization is a ppropriate. This selective aool ication distorts the iudoment's soirit and ouroose. effectivelv weaoonizinq it aqainst emolovees who have rendered indisoensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall befterment of labour practices an 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.ZOLA are quashed; t2 SN, J !t. t! H we r. the ao llants shalI not be r the Deriod ave not worked for but wo td ck wa nefitsl

11. reDO NAGA an 2025rNSC t44 ln *sH RTPALAN D N AM G AZ D", in rtacular oTHER v. 'r.5. ars. so n s a th !rs erv nn, o Ges ov rs everal than ad eca e. h I r f r r I l3 SN, J aoreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary,, emptoyment practices as done by a iecent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, Ets exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of 'fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmenta I 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 increasinqly become a mechanism to 2024 seC'olf nkE^sdh3gzetvhoe^f ohg'-16p*'-odlifiatttiits owed to employees. These practices manifest in severa! ways: . Misuse of "TemDor rv" Labels: Emolovees enqaqed for work that is essential, recurrinq, and inteoral to the functioninq of an institution are often labelled as "temoorary" or en their roles mirror "contractual," even reoular emplovees. Such those of gic;$*l!#klGr+FrEirii{''ftI!rtf;+<L<Pji?'.'-ii{r;i i:'1. ; t4 mtsclas ifica on deo ves wor rs of sN, , I identical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, i, ,""n in the present case. This practice undermines the principl-es of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardiess of the quality or duration of their service. . Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities ior still development, promotions, or inciemental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, lieating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions O_-eing equally significant. . Using . Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing rotes performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. T'his tr;ctice not .perpetuares exploitation but atso Oemonitrates a deliberate effort to bypass the oUtigation to offer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as.'pension, provident fund, health lnsuiance, -'spans and paid .leave, even when their tenure decades. This lack of social security suO;ects tfrem and their families to undue hardship, eipeciaffy in cases of illness, retirement, ;; unfoi"seen circumsta nces. " The High Court did acknowledge the Employer,s 16. ir'ability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequenfly, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some rneasure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only i I I l5 SN. J perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record. 17. ln light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, L947, and that thev were enoaoed in n 3 t6 SN, J 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, t947, - is declared illegal. All oiders 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 th e Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. III. Considering the length of seryice, the Appellant Workmen shall be entifled 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 mont'hi from the date of their reinstatement. ate a fair and tran Dare tD the date ss for ment, dulv AoDella tw orkmen or r requl rization, I similarlv v DO In r r t7 SN, J to ensure these lonqtime emolovees are not indefinitelv retained on dailv waqes contrarv to statutorv and eouitable norms.

19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed." L2. The Aoex Court in a iudoment reoorted in (2O17) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148, in State of Puniab and others vs Jaoiit Sinq and others at Paras 54 an its sub-Daras I \,1 2 lf?l af +lra ari;l irrzlrrrtani altca "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay- scale, merely for the reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The full bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:- "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contradual 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, shatt be entitted to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. if dailv oerc, ad oc or con appointees are not aopointed aoainst redular sanctioned oosts and their seruices are availed continuouslv, with notional breaks. by the State Government or iE instrumentallties for a sufficient tong period i.e. for 70 yeats' such dailv waoers, ad hoc or contractual apooinfues shall be entitled to minimum of the regular oav scale without anv l8 SN, J allowances on the assumption that work of oerennial nature is available and havina worked for such lona oeriod of time. an eouitable rioht is created in such cateoory of oercons. Their claim for reoularization. if anv, mav have to be considered separatelv in terms of legallv oermissible scheme. (j) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale aft.er more than three yearc 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. fhe iudoment of the Aoex Court reoorted in 2O1O(9) SCC 247 between: State of Karnataka and others v M.tKesari and others, in oarticular, oaras 4 to 9 reads as under: sion in State of Karnataka v, Umadevi was rendered 4. The on 7O.4 .2006 heoorted in 2006 G) sCC 7). In that case, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made wit:hout following the due process or the rules relating to ap,oointment did not confer any right on the appointees and coiJrts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re- engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Articte 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, reqularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic ar.angement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nc,r lend themselves to be instruments to facititate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further . that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in aclherence of Articles 74 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the se'me is extre,cted below : l9 SN, J "53. One asoect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irreoular appointments (not illeqal apoointmenBl as exolained in S.V. Naravanaooa t7967 (7) SCR 72AL R.N. Naniundaooa 17972 (7) s,CC 4O9l and B,N. Nadaraian 17979 (41 s,CC 5O7l and referred to in oara 75 above. of dulv aualified ,,ers,ons in duly sanctioned vacanc posts miaht have been made and the emoloveen have continued to work for ten vearc or mote but without the intervention of orderc of the courF or of tribunals. tion of the services of The ouestion of teoula such emplovees may have to be considered on merits in the liohc of the ?,rinciples settted bv chis Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this iudomenL fn that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steos to regularize as a one-time measute. the services of such irreaularlv aooointed. who have worked for ten vearc or more in duly sanctioned oosfs but not under cover of orderc of the courfs or of tribunals and should further ensure that reaular recruitments are undettaken to fill those vacant sanccioned posfs that reouire to be filled up. in cases where temoorant emolovees or daili ,waoerc are beina now emoloyed. The orocess must be set in motion within six months from this date. .... "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against ' regularization' enunciated in tJmadevi, 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. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointmehts are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments wilt be considered to be illegal, But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected 20 SN, J witt'out undergoing the process of open competitive selection, suclt appointments are considered to be irresif"i. - ' ) v, a du u on the co

6. 1'he term 'one-time measure, has to be understood in its proper perspective. This _would normally mean that ut"i iii decision in lJmadevi, each departm"rt 'o, iiri' instrumentality shortld undertake a one_time'.r"rriru ia-piipare a tist of all casual, dairy-wage or ad hoc.emproyees in[ n{i been woi*ig f31, mory than ten years .withoui ti" iit"iiiiii of courts and tribunats and subject them to " pii"ri i'iiinr"tion as to whether they are working against va'cant posts-and possess the requisite quatification for tln. port-;l.rlj iili,-regutarize tneir sen,ices.

7. ,qt the end of six months from the date of decision in U m it d ev i, ca ses of seve ra t a a i ry ya g ey ii i-_ n iii iu i u t e m p I oyees w:r? stitt pending before .Coufrs. coni.iiiruv, severat departments and instrumentalities did ,ii ,oii.rru the one_ t!.:^_:gs-u!?ri?tion process. on the othei'- nand, some . or instrumentalities undeiook thi bove.rnment departments one-time exercise exctuding . several i_jioy.., from con:;ideration either on the groind that their cas{s"were pending in courts or due to sheer.oversight. tn suin-iiiimstances, the e:lptgyees who were entitted to-oe coniui)ei'ii'i"r., of para 53 cf the decision in umadevi, *ii ,;;b; ;;.;, right to be con:;idered for regularization,' merely--bii*ii'in" one_time exe;cise was completed without ,orrdiiii-tnli, ,ur"r, o, beanuse the six month Denoct mentioned in para 53 of lJmadevi has expired. The one-iime exercise snoud iiniaer al! daity_ wage/adhoc/those employees_yvlo- had pri-ii-to yearc of continuous seruice as on 7O.4.2OOA friioii avaiting the protection of any interim orders of ,oui iiliUinats. If any emptoyer had held the one_.time "*"ai-i, ieiiZr para ss of umadevi, but did not consider the ;;;;;;;i'Ziprcyee, wno wer,e entiued to the benefit or p"riiiiiuiu;;;';h" emptoyer concerned should consider their cases ii i ,rirtinuation "tio, 2t SN, J 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 s to ensure that those who have put in more than ten vears of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for reoularization in view of their lono seruice. Second is to ensure that the departmenElinstrumentalities do not peroetuate the oractice of emoloying oercons on daily-waoelad- hoc/casual for long oeriods and then oeriodically regularize them on the oround that thev have serued for more than ten vears. therebv defeatina the constitutional ot statutory provisrons relating to recruitment and aooointment. The true effect of the direction is that all oersons who have worked for more than ten vears as on 70.4.20O6 (the date of decision in Umadevil without the protection of anv inte,rim order of anv court or tribunal, in vacant posls, oossessino the reauisite aualification. are entitled to be considered for reoularization. The fact that the emolover has not undertaken such exercise of reaularization within six months of the declsion in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken onlv in regard to a limited few, will not disentitle such emoloyees. the rioht to be considered for teoularization in cerms 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, Gadail 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 direded that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law, The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/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 22 SN, J tl1em, their services have .to be regutarized. If such an exercise ha-s atready been undertaken ov iiiiiniir'Liiiiirg the cases of respondents r to 3 because'ofihe p;!;.;;;;ii";;.;;r; tllen their cases shall have to Oe consiieiiA ih the said one time exercise within three iiiii.' tl t, needtess to s:?y that if the respondents do not tutfiil ih;' iquirements of P,ara 53 of Umadevi, their seruices r"ua ,it-,"|igutarised. If tlle employees who have completed t"n yi"i ii*iru ao not possess the educationat oualifications pnririOua iir tne post, at ionsidered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeat is disposed of accordingly. lim.e of their appointment, th;f ;;r-;; -iontinuation

14. In th iu ment of a d ersv. e AD Court nNihal Sin qh P nia b DO o1 )1 4 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 disposar their services were made avaitable. ft held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants .employees. of those Banks since the . appointment was made by the State and disciptinary control vested with the State. ft 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 creating contractuat action is arbitrary. ft atso refused to relationship, its persons 23 SN. J services of laroe number of oeoole like the aooellants for bv the State. It was held that the judqment in Umadevi ': ... .,:._,.-:.EE r 24 o 7 B SN, J o1 v d I Nellore District, Andhra Prad esh and oth rs, in oartic Iar oaras 17 and 8 reads as under: (7) Hioh Court. The riaht of the a nts to seek ularization -by respondent Municipality being a statutory the c.O. 21 2(supra). Inspite of the above respondents kept quite for almost 20 years the seruice of the appellants and continued G.O. till todav. The body is obliged by mentioned G.O. the without regulartsing tct extract work from the appellants. 8. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground tha{ the appeilants approached ttre Tribunal belatedty, in our opinion, is'itot iuitinbb. n the circumstances, the appeal is altowed modifying'tie order under directing that the appettants, ,.*ii", be regutarised appeal with effect from the date of their comptetinj- thii, -frn" y"", q)ntinuous senrice as was laid down by this'Court in District Cillector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L, Singh A Ors. 2009 (8) scc 480. 16. In Ama 201s)8 SCC 265, the Supreme Court held that .The objective behind the exceptaon carved out in this case was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregutar but not illega!, and to ensure appointments, whach are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure securitv of nt Rai v Sta ihar reDo 25 SN, J Government and their instrumentalities for more than ten

17. In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasad reoorted in (2014) 7 SCC 223. similar view was taken bv the "47.... In view of the categorical finding of fact on the relevant contentious issue that the respondent employees applies to the present cases. The Division Bench of the intertered with by this Court."

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 . .i.....__.. : ' ..:. . .i_ 26 SN, J confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2024 in SLP No,32847 of

2024. "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not onty have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus,

1111. 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. "Further, it is manifest ft-om the material on record that the services of the similarly placed persons who approached the law C,curts were regularized. The appellant-Corporation also issued 27 SN, J various office orders/circulars 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 gf 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." 2r.. The Divi sion Bench of dated 19.O9.2OA7 Dassed is Court in its Judoment in W.P.No.272l7 of 2Ol7 reported an 2O18(2)ALD paoe 282 at Dara 16 and Dara 18 observed s 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 lJma 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 Couft, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time absorption/regularization 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.. No2.12,.-d.a-qeC ,.22.4.!994, .Ythile giving directions in'.,:: ' Para No,53 of the judgment in llma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regularization/absorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 1OO and G.O, Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994. do not whittle down the width and the iudoment in ltfanr'ula Bashini's case (suora), does not i 28 SN, J Deyi's case (supra).

113. For the aforementioned reasons, order dated 27.6.2Ot7 inOAN o.L442 of 2O14, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside thll aE ts." D

21.o4.20 O oassed in .A.Nos.lot2 O2O in 1ot2o19

22. and w D o.230 57 ol O19 reDo in2o20(4)ALD X.9 at oaras 45, 48 and oara 5O observed as under:_ "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on d,aily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) yeaE of s:rvice by now. They have been given minimum time_scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously working without aly Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date. 4a. It is ot kn the 1st t has not ressEilelheir serylecs! 29 SN, J

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constltution of India; thg respondents are directed to reoularaze on one-tame basis petitioners' services from the date each of the petitioners a.tltinlata fF.irt +ha irrifirl rr^i entitled to any monetarv relaef. The said exercise shall be done within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of coov of the order." <arvi fhair rnrl.tiir+ 'rral'} Rr r+ llrarr ahrll 'l O verr.c arr ellilv .lelac r^rl^ac ^f ^f

23. This Court ooines that in the present case. the respondents faaled to discharoe their duw an examinino the reouest of the oetitioner for reoularization of petitioner's servaces, who is workino as full time sweeoer and further to consader has reouest to treat the temporarv service of the Detitioner in t e last orade oost of full time sweeper as reoular one for all DurDoses bv orantino last orade Dav with oeriodical increment revise from time to time from the date of aooointment of the oetitioner, in accordance to law.

24. This Court oDines that ioner is entitled for consaderataon of petitioner's case for orant of the relief as nrtvar{ n he + ttr.aca.i+ ril Dalitian in rri observataons of the Apex Court in various iudqments 30 SN, J (-teferrea to ana extractea aUo Division Bench of this court in the Judoments referred to and extracted above. a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the tearned counser appearing on behalf of the petitioner and tearned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 c) The observations of the Apex court in the various judgments (refemed to and extracted above) and again enlistecl below: i)(2o2o) 1 ScC (L&S) (ii) 1990(2) scc page 396 (aii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2(J24 LawSuit(SC) LZO9 (v) (2017) 1 scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scC- 241 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Ontine SC t7g7 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x:) (2oL4) 7 S,Cc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of ZO24 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) zOLt (1) ALD, page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 3l SN, J d) The Division Bench order of 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 ol 2O1O and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dated O8.O9.201O passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), ision Bench order of this Court dated e) The L9.O9.2O17 passed in W.P.No.272l7 ot 2O17 (referred to and extracted above), The Division Bench order of this Court dated f) 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 ol 2019 (referred to and extracted above). 9) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order. 32 SN, J benefi dulv encl evant docu increments revised from time to time from the date of apoointment of the oetitioner and ail conseouential inq all the nts in suppor!: of petitioner's case as out-forth in the oresent lgrit oetition. within a oeriod of one (o1) week from the daiEe o! receiot of copv of the order and the respondents SlExamine and consider the same in accordance to law, in conformitv with orincioles of natural iustice by an oooortuniw of personal .hearinq to the @inq petitioner, in terms of orders oassed by the suoreme court in uma Devi's case reported in 2oo6(4) scc paoe 1, the judoment passed in w.p.No.24377 of 2oo7 dated o8.o9.2o1o reoorted in 2o11 (1) ALD, paqe 234 and as @ted in w.A.No.782 of 2o1o dated 1o.o6.2o13. and algre oer O:Vision eench nd also the Division Bench 2018( Ullruent of this Court dat I.A. .1 of 2O firuV. witnin a oerioa of inlof2O 19 in W.P. 9.23O57 ol 2019 Daqe 379 which had in2 o20(4) 33 iDt of a coDv of t is order, dulv takin laid d deration the obse ations a d the la SN, J A s extracted abovel. and in oarticular, oara No.53 of the n n v h V' r r h n order asto sts. Miscellaneous Petitions, if of,y, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT RE,EISTRAR SECTIOI(OFFICER One Fair Copv to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA ' ' (For Her Ladyships Kind Perusal) To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayathraj Department' Telangana Secretariat' Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana'

3.TheDistrictCollectorandChairmanofSelectionCommitteeandMinimum -' Wagea Committee, Mahabubabad District'

4.TheChiefExecutiveOfficer,ZillaPrajaParishad'VikarabadDistrict' 5. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer' Marpally Mandal' Vikarabad District, TS.

6. 11 LRCcPies 7. The Un<ler Secretary, Union of lndia' Ministry of Law' Justice and Company 8. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association' Library' High Court Affairs, lrlew Delhi. Buildings, HYderabad.

9. One CC; to SRI CH.GANESH' Advocate [OPUC] 10.One CC to SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA' SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT \ IoPUC'

11.TwoC()stoGPFoRSERVlcES.ll,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad [OUT]

12.Two CI) CoPies BSR PVL HIGH COI.'RT DATED:2210712025 ( ORDER WP.No.25985 of 2022 t t * Ii{E S [ 7 |li,8 ?il2s z * ) ) ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ."P