The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of l\,4andamus to declare the inactlon of the respondents jn not treating the petitioners as regular one in the last grade post from their date of appointment to till date for not implementing GO I\4s. No. 1 93 dated '1 4-03- 1 990 in its true spirit to regularize their services in the Iast grade posts by respondents to deprive the petitioners to secure legitimate living wages on par with their regularly engaged persons in last grade posts as unjust and unfair, illegal and violative of Article 14' 16' 21, 39 (d)' 43 and 300 (A) of Constitution of lndia and Govt. Orders in subjecting the petitioners to continuous exploitative enslavement during their life time or till their death without any service progress by taking advantage of their helplessness with poverty, poor social, economical political background in depriving their legitimate wages decades together and prays to direct the respondents herein to treat the services of the petitioners as regular one in the last grade posts for all purposes from the date of their initial appointment to till date along with periodical increments revised from time to time by applying the principle Iaid by the full bench of this Honble Court in WA No. 1222 of 1999 and Batch dated 16-10-2000 followed by the principle laid by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs State of UP in CAS No. 6798 of 20'19 and Batch Cases dated 02-09-2019 (2019 (10) SCC 516) and in CA No. '1254 of 2018 to reckon contingent services of petitioners for computation of their qualifying service to grant pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits with all Consequential monetasry benefits on par with regularly engaged last grade employees along with periodical increments revised from time to time with 100 % compensation on arrears of pay as per principle laid by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Union of lndia Vs Avtar Chand in CA No. 3416 - 3445 of 2010 Batch Cases dated 19-02-2019 (ALt 3 of 2019 SC 32) by applying the aforesaid judgments by this Honble Cor-rrl in sirnilar cases of petitioners as per Article 141 of our Constitution. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir tumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High:Court ma y be pleased to direct the respondents herein to continue the petitioners in service, ly paying on par with regularly engaged last grade employees along with pet i rdical increments as revised from time to time as per the orders granted in l.A. N: 1 of 2018 in WP No. 38763 of 2018 dated 30-10-2018 in srmilarly situated cases. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI CH. GANESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP FOR SERVIO:S-l Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 11: SRI PRADEEP Fll .DDY KATTA, SC FOR TG ZILLI PARISHAD The Court made the following: ORDER 2 SN, J \\p 28-127 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WRIT PETITION No.28 427 0F 2022 o/o L8.O7.2025 Between: # D. Ganganna & 21 others And $ The State ofTelangana & 10 Others < Gist: > Head Note: ! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Ch.Ganesh Petitioners Respondents ^Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: AGP for Services-I ^Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 to 11: Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, lea rned standing cou nsel ? Cases Referred: (i) (2020) l scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 Law Suit (SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) 1 SCC 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14SCC 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC 1797 (ix) (201s) 8 Scc 26s (x) (2oL4) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 ) SN, ] \vp 28427 2022 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI I\ ANDA WRIT PETITION No.28427 OF zOt t-2 ORDER Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistarrl Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Rural Developm,e nt/ appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and lea - red Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Plann i rg, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, Sri prtdeep Reddy Katta. learned Standing Counsel for TG iZ lla Parishad, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 to l1

2. The oetitioners aooroach ed the Court : :ekinq orayer I as under: "...to issue an order or direction more partic r larly one in the nature of Writ of lvlandamus to declare :he inaction of the respondents in not treating the p::itioners as regular one ln the last grade post from t I eir date of appointment to till date for not implement ng GO Ms. No. 193 dated 14-03-1990 in its true spirit t > regularize their services in the last grade posts by re:; rondents to deprive the petitioners to secure legitimate lving wages on par with their regularly engaged persons ir last grade posts as unjust and unfair, illegal and violati ,e of Article ) 4 SN..I \rp 28117 2012 14, 16,21,39 (d),43 and 300 (A) of Constitution of india and Govt. Orders in subjecting the petitioners to continuous exploitative enslavement during their life time or till their death without any service progress by taking advantage of their helplessness with poverty, poor social, economical political background in depriving their legitimate wages decades together and prays to direct the respondents herein to treat the services of the petitioners as regular one in the last grade posts for all purposes from the date of their initial appointment to till date along with periodical increments revised from time to time by applying the principle laid by the full bench of this Honble Court in WA No. 7222 of 1999 and Batch dated 16-10-2000 followed by the principle.laid by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs State of UP in CAS No. 6798 of 2019 and Batch Cases dated 02- 09-2019 (2019 (10) SCC 516) and in CA No. 1254 of 2018 to reckon contingent services of petitioners for computation of their qualifying service to grant pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits with all Consequential monetary benefits on par with regularly engaged last grade employees along with periodical increments revised from time to time with 100(PERCNET) compensation on arrears of pay as per principle laid by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs Avtar Chand in CA No. 3416 - 3445 of 2010 Batch Cases dated t9-02-2019 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by applying the aForesaid judgments by this Honble Court in similar cases of petitioners as per ,l-ticle 141 of our Constitution and pass... ". S\. J \p_2{t.lll 2012

3. Learned counsel ADD annq on t,r:half of the petition ers p lacinq relianc e on the avermen t; made in the affidavit filed rn su port of the oresent writ D etitio n perta rnq rn to the serv _ rendered by with the respon dents herein fOr more than a decade contends that the oetitioners a re e 1 title for th relief a s Drave d for in the ores nt writ Detiti() r. pa rti cu la r, petiti ERUS DTHER CORD counsel b e half of a oDea rr nqon scussro NANDC ONCLUS ION:- DI 4. Lear d petitioners su bmits that the subiect issue ir the oresent case is souarelv cove redbvth e order of thi:i Court, dated oa .09.2010 Da ssedinW .P.No.2 4377 of 200 2011 (1) ALD Paqe 234 as c nfirmed in Vr/ A.N 82 of 2010 dated 1o.o6.20 3anda lso order. date ( 19.09 .2017 DassedinW .P.No.2 72t7 ot 2OL7 reoorl din : o18 (2) ALp Paoe 282 and also the order. ated 21. 4.2( !oI w.P. N o.23O57 of 20 19 reDorted in 2O2O( reDorted in 4)A D Pao e 379. assed in L ( 6 SN, ] wp 28127. 2022 r ievance of

5. Learn ed standin q counsel a DDeaflnq on behalf of the submits that the resDo ndent No.4 Detitio ner as put-forth in the present Writ Petition ha not been addre ssed to the resDo dents herei nasonda e and therefore, the petitio n er cannot co mpla in inaction on the pa rt of resoon dents her tn tn con iderino t e orlevanc eof the petitioner and hence, the relief as praved for b etitio rinth resen wit etiti n and n o Manda mus can be issued aoainst t e resoondents hereun der as souoht for and the De itioners m vbe direct ed to out-forth the oetition ers'orievbnce as Dut- forth in the oresent Writ P tition bv avofade tailed entation to the resDo ndents herein and uDon d reDrese ntati on the resDon dents woul d the same in accordance to law, within a of the sai consider ra nte re Dre n not t D reasonable oe riod.

6. Learned coun el aopea rinq on behalf of the oetitioners does not disDute the sai submiss ion made bv the le rned dinq counsel a oearinq on behalf of the resoonde nt sta n p Nos.3 to 11. I d l SN. J \p 28421 :022

7. The Apex Court in the iudqment reported in (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) in Prem Sinqh v State of Utta T Pradesh and others, at para 36 held as under: "36. There are some of the employees who h,r regularized in spite of having rendered the ser\ 40 or more years whereas they have been sugr As they have worked in the work-charged e!t not against any particular project, their servil have been regularized under the GoveTnmeni and even as per the decisron of this Court Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court decision has laid down that in case service:; rendered for more than ten years without the ( Court's order, as one-time measure, the : regularized of such employees. In the facts c those employees who have worked for ten ye:i should have been regularized. It would not l) regulate them for consideration of regularizatis have been regularized, we direct that their treated as a regular one. However, it is maclr they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues < in wages had they been continued in serv < before attaining the age of superannuation. ii entitled to receive the pension as iF they ha from the reoular establishment and tt rendered bv the m rioht from the dav th the work-charoed establishment shall be qualifvino service for DurDose of oension.'' e not been ces for 30- )rannuated. rblishment, :s ought to nstru ctio n s n State ot in the sa id have been over of the ervices be i the case, rs or more r proper to 1 as others ;erv ices be clea r that f difference : reg u la rly ey sha ll be ve retired t1 : ServiCeS ! y entered J ounted as

8. The Aoex Court in the case of Dharwarl District PWD Literate Da ilv \^,a oe EmDlovees Associatiorl Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1990(2) SCC Paqe 39,5 laid principle th at the State shoul not keeD a Derson ir temDo rarY or t' 8 SN, J \\p 18127_2022 adhoc service for lonq period and have to treat such r o ns as reqular one. 9, Para No.53 of the of the iudqment of the ADex Court in the tate of Ka rnataka and others Vs. Umade vi, dated 10.o4.20O6 reoorted in (2OO5) 4 SCC 1 is extracted hereu nd er: - n G 1 c a 4 sen * 1 no 1r "53. One asoect needs to be cla rifi ed, There mav be cases where irreq ular aooointments (not il leoal ADDO intments) as exolained in S.V. Narav naooa R.N. Nan scR 2 1 1 ndB N N.1.r.a r at an r L97o( l ccs n7'l qcc4 and referred to in ara 15 above. of dulv oualified t h^v in dul fl erso ade and the emolovees have contin ued to work for interv ntion of ord rs of the cou rts or of trib u na ls. The oues tion of requ larization of the services of such emplo ees mav have to be cons idered on m rits in ea rso r more but wtt hout ned vaca f 6r'rcts mi tt la ht of ferred ti ht of v men . In that cont vernment to reoularize asaon e-time should take steDs measure. the servic es of such irreoularlv aoo ointed, who have worked for ten vears or more In dulv h a nctio courts or of tribuna s and should further ensu re that h Union hei r r ment f ndia t ses a nder c b th f n n n to fill ul rre vaca nt sanctioned oosts that req uire to be filled uo, wh re te re bein now e motion within six mo ths from this ate. d. wa e set i a 9 S\,.I \rp 28417 20ll

10. The iudqment of the Apex eolrt date( 2o.L2.2O24, re orted in 2024 Law ro Anita and qthels v. union of India and others, anc the relevant paraqraph Nos.12, 13, 24. 26, 27 and 28 rre extracted L2 n l hereunder: "12. Despite being labelled as "pa r :-time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and contiruous basis over extensive periods, ranginr; from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or tem I orary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, r: 3ular, and akin to the responsibilities ty'1 rically associated with sanctioned posts. Mor', )over, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks durin 3 the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. v Th e claim b the resoondenl:! 13. se were not re ular oosts lacks mri 'it, as the nature of the work oerformed ll / the aooellants was Derennial and fundamer tal to the functioninq of the offic€s. The rel nature of these duties ,f how classification as regular posts, irrespective, their initia I engagements were labelled. It s a lso noteworthy that subsequent outsourclng cf th ese ' the same tasks to private agencies aftrl appellants' termination demonstrates the ir lerent need for these services. This act of outs(), rrcing, which effectively replaced one set oF work(l s with rrk in another further underscores that the vi question was neither temporary nor occasior al. necessitates l0 SN, J tvp 11112? 2022

24. The landmark judgment oF the United State in the case of Vizcaino v I\4icrosoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were. in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the Iabel assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and beneFits. It hiohliqhts the iud icaarv's role in rectifvinq such m isclassifications and ensurino that workers receive fair treatm e nt.

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice oF backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of Iong serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" appointments. It cateqoricallv held that em lovees irreoular aDDointments who were enoaoed in dulv sanctioned Dosts and had served continuouslv for more than ten vears should na ao ne- be con sidered for re U atlz time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to ind iscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their " irregu la r" at o s 7- S\. J .\',r 1s127 2021 appointments are not illegal, but mere 1 adherence to procedural formalities. Gove - departments often cite the judgment in Un., De,ri lt to (supra) tc argue that no vested ri!l regularization exists for temporary emplr ryeeS, judgment's e overlooking the x p licit acknowledgment of cases where reQularizzrr ion is ;torts appropriate. This selective application d il the iudqment's spirit and puroose, ejfe, :ivelv weaponizinq it aqainst emplovees wh.rr have rendered indispensable services d eca d es. In light of these considerations,

27. opinion, it is imperative for gove - departments to lead by example in provid r and stable employment. Engaging worker; temporary basis for extended periods, eslr inrhen their roles are integral to the organi: i functioning, not only contravenes interrr labour standards but also exposes the orgar i to legal challenges and undermines emlr morale. By ensuring fair employ practices, government institutions reduce the burden of unnecessary litigt, promote job security, and upholcl principles of justice and fairness tha: are meant to embody, This approach i with international standards and s( positive precedent for the private sect follow, thereby contributing to the o betterment of Iabour practices in the cor 2fJ. In view of the above discussio r and findings, the appeals are allowed. The imlt rgned orders passed by the High Court and the Tr bunal are set aside and the original application is zr owed to the following extent: I OUr g fair on a rcia ly tio n s tional .a tio n rtio n / )r to rerall ntry. i. The termination orders

27.t0.2018 are quashed; C ated ) sN..t \ P ts [7 ]otl ii. The a ooella nts sh al! be taken forthwith and their r qularised forth back on du se rvt ces However, the aooella nts shall not be e ntitledto Decunrarv ben efits/back wa es for the pe riod thev ave not worked for but would beentitled to continuitv of se rv r ces e sam would be counted for their oost- od and e said tiral benefi

11. The J udoment of t e ADex Court dated 31.o1.2025 ..SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v. I e Dorted in 20 25 rNSC 144 i NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD", iN O rticular. the releva nt Dara N s.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder: "15. It is manifest that the Aooellant Workmen con ti nuouslv rendered their servrces over everal vea rs, sometimes soannin q more than a d eca de, Even if certain muster rolls were not oroduced in full, the Emolover's failure to furnish such reco rds- des D ite directions to do so-allows an adverse inferen ce la bou r i u risorud ence. Indian lab ur law stronolv d isfavors er etu clrcum stances where the wor natu re. Morallv and leqallv, workers wh onqornq municioal ot be di rs Derman ent in fulfil requrremen ts vear after vear e well-establashed s dis ensa mmari! ractual -w e oa rticu la rly in the absence of a qenuine contractor n .a \'. I r!t 23J 2; l1)l l aoreement. At this juncture, it would D: appropriate to recall r:he broader critique of indefin tl "temporary" employmilnt practices as done by a rece' . judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India ir the following pa rag ra pirs: '22. The pervasive misuse of tempor; ry employment contracts, as exemplified in this : rse, reFlects a Droader systemic issue that ac \ ersely afFects r,vorkers' rights and job security. n the private secl or, the rise of the gig econom'/ has led to an ncrease in precanous employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of beneft;, job securiiy, and fair treatment. Such practi(:( s have been criticrzed for exploiting workers a r I undermining labour standards. Government institur ions, entrusted rvitl-r upholding the principles of fairr r ss and justice, i)ea r an even greater responsibilit\ to avoid such (lxp oitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse oF temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the det imental trends obsr:rved in the gig economy bU also sets a con(rerning precedent that can erode 6 ublic trust in qov.,'rn mental operations.

25. It is a disconcerting reality t rat temporary cmployees, particularly in governm:1t institutions, often face multifaceted forms of ex r oitation. While the foundational purpose of temporar) contracts may havr: been to address short-term or s:asonal needs, they have increasingly become a mer:l anism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-t€ rm obligations owed to employees. These practict s manifest in several ways: o Misuse of "TemDora rv" Labelr i: Emplovees enoao ed for work that is essenl:i al, recurrinq, and tnteoral to the functioninq ol rn institution often Iabelled as "ten rporarv" or "co ntractual," even when their roles mi r f 14 SN. J lfp 18127 2022 reqular those of emolovees. Such misclassification deDrives workers of the diqnitv, securitv, and benefits that reqular emolovees are entitled to. desDite oerforminq identical tas s . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. . Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contrlbutions being equally sig n if ica nt. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. . Denial oF Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some 7^ l5 SN. ] \p 28r27. 2022 measure oF parity in minimum pay. Regrelt rbly, this only the Appellant \y'orkmen were perpetuat€rd precariousness: left in a marginally improved yet still u'l rertain status. While the High Court recognized the imprr tance of their r'vork and hinted at eventual regularizati) r, it Failed to alford thern continuity of service or meanrnil ul back wages commensLrrate r.;ith the degree of stal.r tory violation evident on record.

17. In light of these consideratlons, r I e Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Worknr:n stands in vioiation of the most basic labour law princil les. Once it is established that their services were ternr rated without adherinE io Sections 6E and 6N of the ,,P. Industrial thev wer 3 enq aqed in Disputes Acl, 1947, and that essential, perennial duties, these work rs cannot be releqated to perDetual uncertaintv. Wlile concerns of municipal budqet and comrr iance with recruitment rules merit consideration r; rch concerns do not absolve the Emplover of statutol y oblioations ol neqate equitable entitlemenl s. Indeed bureaucratic limitations cannot trump re leoitimate riqhts of workmen who have served c<1 rtinuously in de facto reoular roles for an extended p1 riod, t (

18. The impuqned order of the Hiqh (:ourt, to the extent thev confine the Apoellant Workr ren to future dailv-waqe enqaqement without <t,ntinuitv or 16 SN, J \!p t3127 2022 meaninqful back wa qes is hereb v set side with the followino directio ns: L The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen,s services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, is declared illegal. AII orders or 7941 , 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) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entireperiod of absence (from the date of term ination u ntil actual reinstate ment) shall be counted for contin u ity of service and all co nseq u entia I benefits, such senioritv and elioibili tv for o romotions, if a nv. III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. IV. The Resoo ndent Emol er is directed to rnttiate a fair and transDarent Droce ss for reo ularizinq the ADDellant Workmen within six mon ths from the date of reinstatemen consa erino the f ct that thev have oerformed De ren nial munici al duties akin to oer anent In assessino re u la rization. Emo ver shall not i ose educati onal or m D cn ria ret roactivelv if Drocedural reour rements were never aoolied t to sim rl ellan Wor men t r 1l SN. J \,t 28127 2022 recrula r emDlovees in the Dast. 'l'( the extent that sanctioned vacanc ies for sucl 1 duties exist or are reouired, the Respondent E lo er shal I i ,e orocesses expedite all necessary administrat to ensure these lon otime emolo v 3es are not indefin itelv retained on d lv waoe ; contrarv to statutorv and e o u ita ble norms. a

19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(: ) filed by the Nagar N igam Ghaziabad are dismissed. " t2. The Apex Cou rt in a iudoment reoorterl i L7 1 Supreme Court Cases 148 in State of Pu nIe lr and others j:s sub-oaras vs Jaoiit Sinqh and others at Paras 54 and (1)(2)(3), of the said iud o ment observed as rr rder: "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, vr t'. upon the above controversy had concluded, employees were not entitled to the minimum af t scale, merely for the reason, that the activitic: daily-wagers and regular employees were similar however, made two exceptions. Temporary emp in either of the two exceptions, were held enti t the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular exceptions recorded by the full bench of the Hi, impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:- le adjudicating hat temporary te regular pay- carried on by The full bench tyees, who fell )d to wages at 'mployees. The h Court in the "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contrer against the regular sanctioned posts, tf undergoing a selection process based upt equality of opportunity to all other eligi shall be entitled to minimum of the regul.t the date of engagement. (21 But if dailv waqers, ad hoc a' contractua I aL tinst reoular sanctioned posts va iled ,.ual appointee tppointed a fter n fairness and tle candidates, pay scale from not a and their service: are a l8 SN. J wp 28121 2022 i continuo uslv with notional breaks, bv the Sfate Government or ts instrumentali ties for a sufficient lono oeriod i.e, for 7 O vears. such dailv wao hoc or contractual aDporn tees shall be entitled to mtnimum of the reoular oa v scale without anv the assumDtion that work of allowances on Derennial nature ,s available and havin q worke for such Ionq oeriod of time, an eouitable riqht is crea ted in such cateoorv of oersons. Their clai, reo ularization. if a mav have to be cons n ratelv in terms of ledallv Dermts le sch me, e (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daity wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months.,,

13. The iudq ment of the Aoex Court reDo rted in 2010f 9) scC 247 between : State of Kar nata ka and others v M.L.Kesari a nd others, rn Darticular, aras 4 o9rea sas u nd er: The decision in State of Karna ka v. Uma devi was rendered 4. 10.4.2006 ( reoorted in 200 6 (4) SCC 1).In that case, a Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to ot confer any right on the appointees and appointment did n courts 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, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the coutls must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instru mentalities, nor 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 tegal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in . {, 19 SN,.I \\p 28127 2022 adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Consti',1lron. Thts Court however made one exception to the above a)sition and the same is extracted below : e u ! e s in the li ht of the "53. One asp ect needs to be clarifiect. There ma vbe cases where irreqular aDDointmenl; (not illeqal appointments) as explained in S.V Na rava na DDa t1967 (7) SCR 7281, R.N. Naniundt tpa 17972 (7) (4) SCC sOTl SCC 4O9l and B.N. Nasaraian [192l) i and referred to in Dara 75 above, o dulv aualified 'ts mioht have Dersons in dulv sanctioned vacant D( ! continued to een made and h work for ten vears or more but without the r of tribunals. intervention of orders of the courts The question of reqularization of i:l e services of such emolo vees mav have to be ''onsidered on ettled bv this Court in the cases abovereferred to a1d in the liqht the Union of f ndia - instru mentalities should take steps t reqularize as a one-time measure, the services of ; tch irreqularlv aDDointed, who have worked for ter. y'ears or more in dulv sanctioned Dosts but not 't tder cover of orders of the courts or of tribunit s and should further ensure that reqular re(t ritments are undertaken to fill those vacant sd ! ctioned posts that leqrrire to be filled up, in cases where temoorarv emolo es or dailv wat I trs are beinq now emDloved. The Drocess must b,= set in motion within six months from this date. .... i t ttln ntan t. the Sfate Governme nt,; fn th al anrlloYf a nd ncl, thi< "5. It is evident from the above that theit is an exception to the general principles agatnst 'regularizatto, ' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled . (i) The employee concerned should have workec for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benef t or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In (ther 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 shou,( not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments .r: not made or 20 SN. .I \tp_2E42i 2022 continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be j egal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed quatiftcations and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competttive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. (iii) umadevi casts a dutv uDon the co cerned Government or instrumentalitv. to take steDs to reqular those irreoularlv a DDointed s who had served for more than te without the benefit or Drotection of anv interim o ers of courts or tribunals, as a one-tim e measure. u adevi, directed that such one-time m easure must be set in ( rendered o 70.4.2006). the services of the da I I

6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decisron rn Umadevi, 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 ha've 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.

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several da ily-wage/ad -hoc/casua I employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instru men ta lities did not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instru mentalities undertook 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 lLmadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider a daity- wage/adhoc/ those employees who had put in 10 years of 7 l1 S\, J \rp 23.12r 2022 ' ava iling the ibu nals. If any s ol' para 53 of =mployees who i, the employer continuation of li be concluded be considered continuous service as on 10.4.2006 withc'- protection of any tnterim orders of courts or i employer had held the one-time exercise tn tet') Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of som,' were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umat1,' concerned should consider their cases also, as : the one-time exercise. The one time exercise t only when all the employees who are entitled I in terms of Para 53 cf Umadevt, are so considet ' 8. The obiect behind the said direction , t para 53 of limadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure tl at tho'se whe have Dut in more than ten vears of cont t luous servrce without the Drotection of anv interim ordet s o't cputts pt tribunals, before the date of ecision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for reoularizat.( n view of en:t re tho! jhe their lonq service. Second ,s to deoartments / instrumentalities do not f't rPetuate the practice of emolovino Dersons on _,1 tilv-waae /ad- hoc/casual for lond Detiods and the t pertad ledlly reqularize them on t e around that thev lt, ve served for more than ten vears, therebv d featino the constitutional 'uitment and or statutorv orovisions relatina to re apoointment. The tr e effect of the direct on is that all Dersons who have worked for more than lc n vears as on 70.4.2006 (the date of decision in Umadet ) without the protectioa of anv interim order f anv cour t or tribunal, in vacant Dosts, Dossessina the reouisite oL '; lification, are entitled to be considered for reoularizatiotr, The fact that the emplover has not undertaken suct exercise of reqularization within six months of tl t decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was unde't taken onlv in reqard to a limited few. will no ctt;entitle such .equ la rization emDlovees, the risht to be considered fot in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure. t

9. These appeals have been pending for more han four years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appellant ( 7-ila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of espondents of regularization within six months of the decisio, in Umadevi or thereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has t rected that the cases of respondents should be considered in , ccordance with a 22 SNJ \!p 28417 t022 law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila panchayat, Gaiag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a geieral one_ time regularization exercise, to find out whether tiere are any daity wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zita panchayat and if so whether such employees (inctuding the respondents) fulfitt the requirements mentioned in para 5J of umadevi. If they fulfi them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercqe has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation o)f the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to s-ay that if the respondents do not fulfi the requirements of Para 5j of Umadevi, their services need not be reqularised. If the employees who have compteted ten years seivice 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 according ly. L4. In the iudom ent of he Aoex Court in Niha I Sinqh and others v. State of Punia b reoorted in ( 2013) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposat their services were made avaitable. It 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. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter ;il 23 S\, J rp 28127 1022 exclusively within the authority of the Stat t , but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but clt rse to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship. its action is arbitrary. It als.l refused to acceDt the defence that there were no sanr: ioned posts and so there was iustification for the St;r'e to utilise services of larqe num erot oeoole like the rpellants for decades. It held that "sanctioned Dosts do r ot fall from heaven" and that the State has to creat(l them bV a conscious choice on the basis of some rationarl assessment of need. Referrinq to Umadevi, it held that tr1 3 aDDellants before them were not arbitrarilv chosen, their initial appointment was not an 'irreqular' aDDointrr { nt as it had been made in accord nce wit h the statuto r / procedure prescribed under the Police Act. 1861. arr, I the State a cannot be heard to sav that thev are not er titled to be absorbed into the services of the State or permanent basis as, accordinq to it, their aooointments were purelv temoorarv and not aqainst anv sanctioned rl )sts created by the State. It was held that the iudqment in Umadevi cannot become a licence for exDloitation bv i :l re State and I 24 s\. J \p 28427 2022 its instru mentali ies and neither th Gove rnmen P Dra n abn rth e ubli ect r Bank ctice inconsistent with their oblioat ion to functionrn tin u accord an ce with the Con stitution.

15. The iudqment of the Apex Cou rt reoorted in 2015 scc Online c L797 betwee n B.Srin iva su lu and others v Nellore Mun icioal C rDoration Reo. bv its Commiss i o ner, Nellore Distri ct, Andhra Pradesh and others. Dara 7a nd 8 reads as u nder: inp a rticu Ia r h e tofthea e G.O. No.212 dated 22 (7) We find it difficult to acceDt e reasonino adoDted bv the Hiqh Coutt. The rio h ppellants to seek reqularization flow from th 4.1994. The aoo ellant have been in service of,the first resDon dent not onlv orior to the ISSUA nce of th said G.O. but even subs equent to the issue of G.O. till todav. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appeltants and continued to extract work from the appe ants. 8. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is altowed modifying the order under app.eal by directing that the appeltants, serviies be regularised with effect from the date of their compteting their iive yea, continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District lollgctgr/Chairperson & others vs. M.L. Singh & ors. 2009 (B) SCC 4BO, 16, In Amarkant Rai v State of Bih ar reoo rted (201 s)8 scc 255, the Supreme Cou rt held that 'The objective f 25 behind the exception carved out in this case S\, J !rI llJ,1l -,- 2022 to permit ^/as regularization of such appointment, whicli are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointmert s, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensur€ securitv of emplov ment of those persons who had se: red the State Government and their instrumentalities for r lore than ten vears", In that case, emplovee was workin for 29 vears. This decision aDproves earlier view r xpressed in I M.L.Kesari extracted above. t7, In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Pras;r, I reported in (2OL4) 7 SCC 223, similar view was t rken bv tlre Supreme Court and it was held as follows : "47.... In view of the cateqorical findinc of fact on the sue th t the re 3 ent emplovees have continued in their service for more' than 70 vears continuouslv therefore, the leoal orinciptS laid down by this Court in Umadevi case (State of Karnaiaka v Umadevi (2OO6) 4 SCC 7 : 2OO6 SCC (L&S) 73) at oi ra 53 squarely aoplies to the Dresent cases. Th e Divisi<t r Bench of the Hiqh Court has riqhtlv held that t e respondent emplovees are entitled for the relief, the tme cannot be interfered with bv this Court." L s

18. The Judgment of this Court datec 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.276O2 of 2019 whic h pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Laksh ni Narasimha t ZO SN. J \p 28.127 2022 Swamy Temple, Yadadr Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No,937 of 2023 dated 10.10.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated

09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.

19. The iudqment of the Apex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others reoorted in AIR 2O20 Suoreme Court 3969 and in oarticular oara Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows: "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, not'only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are dutv-bound to exercise suc h v rnment or a ublic authori has failed to exercise or has wronqlv exercised discretion conferred upo n it bv a statute, or a rule, or a oolicv decision of the Government or has exercised fide, or on irrelevant such discretion mala con sideration. h

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 Jud o ment dated 1O.O5.2O13 oassed in W.A.Nos.782 of 20 1O and 854 of 2O12 while UD holdino the Jud o ment datedO 8.09 .2010 -:;E:+:;..,:isffi* ( 27 SN, J ,Yp 28121 2012 Dassed in W.P.No.243 77 of 2OO7 and C.C.Nr,.4 8 of 2OO8 observed as under:- "Further, it is manifest from the material on services of the similarly placed persons who apl) Courts were regularized. The a ppella nt-Corpo rit various office orders/circulars dated 20.12.19t 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for { casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen ' T of the ID Act prohibits unfair Iabour practice l or workman. As can be seen from the factua cases on hand, engaging the respondents for s continuous period of time on casual basis is nr) labour practice attracting the provisions of Se(t ID Act- The learned Single Judge while relying c of the Apex Court, rlghtly held that the responcr to regularization as directed in the impugnec learned single Judge considered all the aspects detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our does not warrant interference in these appeals"' ecord that the oached the law ion a lso issu ed l, 11.09.1992, gularization of 1at Sectron 25- r any employer ;cenario of the rch a long and h ing but unfair on 25-T of the l the decisions ats are e n titled orders, as the t the matter in onsidered view

21. The Division Bench of this Court in s Judqment dated L9.O9.2017 passed in rN.P.No.272. 7 ot 2Ot7 reported in 2018(2)AtD paqe 282 at para 1ri and para 18 observed as underr- *16. It is trite that the law declared by the Sr binding throughout the country under Arti(l Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that l) judgment )n Uma Devi's case (supra), wa:; provisions of Act 2 of t994 and G.O. Ms. 22.4.7994, were in existence. The Suprenrr denouncing the practice of regularization and persons/ who entered service through back dr> go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for a publlc posts, consciously ordered : a bsorptio n/ reg u la rization of those, who were period of not less than 10 years. It has given a regard to all the State Governments and also preme Court rs r 141 of the the time the rendered, the No.212, dated Court, while rbsorption of f ,rs by giving a )pointments to one-time working for a rection s in thrs Jn ion of Ind ia. T 28 s\. i rrp 28rl2l llll l 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.t994, while giving directions rn Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regu a riza tion/a bso rption exist Therefore Act2ofl 4 1OO and c.O. Ms. No,212 dated t whittle down the width and the 22.4.L994, do ash in i' u u lower the traiectorv of the dire ions issued bv the Suoreme Court in Pa ra 53 of its iu q ment tn Um Devi's case ( uora) rti s- erm I ssi h Ie for th e resoonden ts to take shelter underAct2ofl 994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994, to denv reqularization to the Detiti oners, who have, admittedlv, satisfi ed the criteria laid down in Para N o.53 of the iudoment in Uma Devi's case (su o ra ). n Man e- no t D n I

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 21 .6.2011 , in OA No.1442 of 2074, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and +h6 wrt f naf h resDonden ts to consider reqularisat ion of the services of the oetitioners aoai st the existino vacancres of Work Inso ctors and a oDoint the subiect to the ir satisfvinq ria laid dow in Para No.5 3 of the iudo ment in the cri be com a ction i.r ith t evi's f h f hin tw this order."

22. The Division Bench of t is Court in its J udqment d 2L.O4.202 O oassed in I .A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.2 3057 of 2019 reDorted in 2O2O(4)ALD Daqe 379 at oaras 45- 4 and oara 5(} observed as u nder: - "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date. 48. It is not known whv the 1st resnondent has not case (suora ). as followed the decision in Uma Devt 's . ,I:nai-;1ffi! ...*$g;;a 29 S\. J \\p 23111 2022 explain ed in M.L. Kesari's case (suD ra ! a n(l ndertaken i dailv waoe one-tim e exercrse of oreoarinq the Iist emolovees who had worked for more than :n (1O vea rs without the inte rvention of the Courts and ' ibunals as on 10.4.20 06 and subiect themtoao rocess v€ 1 f ication as to thev are workinq a arnst vaez U t posts and whethe r and if so ns for uisite t I r a reoularize their services.

50. Accord ngly, the writ petitlon is allowed the impugn ed orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respc rdent rejectin g -vices on one- the cases of petitioners for regularization of s€ rd vrolative of time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary 3 of India; the Articles 14. 16 and 21 of the Constitution 1e-time basis resDondents are directed to req ularize on DetitiOn ers' services from the date ach of re oetitioners comolete 1o vears of service n dailv w a res from the thti shall not be in iti entitled to anv monetarv relief . The said e>1 rcise shall be f recei done within two (2) weeks coov of the order." ates of their aDoointment. But f rom the datr o t t

23. This ourt opines that in the Dreser t case, the resp o n dents failed to discharqe their dutv 1 examininq the request of the oetationers petitione r's services, who are workino for requlrrization of s full I conti no e nt sweeoers and further to consider heir r ouest r at the tem of the e E rs an the last orade Dost of full time sweeDers as reoul;t one for all v orantinq last qra e Dav wit't periodical e to time frorr the date of increment revised from ou rDoses aDDointment of the oe troners n accordanct: to law. J 30 SN. J lrp 28427 2022

24. This Court oDines that oetitioners are entitled for co nsi d e ration of oetitioners'ca se for qrant of the re lief as r edf observatio ns of the Apex Court in vaflou view of th ition i rit P iudom ents h referr to an and extracted a b e. a !n and th view of th Jud m nts ref rred 25, Takinq into con sideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos,3 to 11, c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: i) (2020) l SCC (L&S) (ii) 1990(2) SCC page 396 (iii) 2025 rNSC 144 (iv) 2O24 Law Suit (SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) l sCC 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scC 6s I -.r:::.: . . :..,::'ii:i-liEiit-l ]I SN. J \!p 28,121 l0l2 (viii) 2O1s SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (201s) I Scc 265 (x) (2OL4) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 SCc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(a)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this lourt dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 ot 2O1ll and 854 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment date,J 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2007 and C.C.Nr .48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this lou rt dated L9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2O1 z (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this :ourt dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in LA.Nos.l of 2O2O in L of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 ot 2OL9 (referred to and extrac ted above). g) In the light of discussion and conclusion rs arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order. I 32 SN. J "P 28.r2 7 2022 The Wri Peti n all WE d irected to put-for th the claim of tion of De ton rs s la ri ition rs e the Detition e rs for rces and also the claim eti roner o reat ete s of he etiti ners in th las os of tin ent we sre lar r o sb with periodical increm ents r vtse r I t r rom tim o tim e from orn ent of titi ers and all ntia I ben its nclo n documen ts rn SUDDO rt of petiti ners' case as DU t-fort th p resen t writ oetition, wit hin a D e riodofone( 01) week fromth date of receiotofc oDv of the o rder and the rel van h the same rn re pondents s hall exami ne and co sider ac cord a ncetol aw, rn conformt with orinci Dles u ice b o In artn to th oetit I On ers tn t rms of ord rs Da sed bv the Suore me Court in Uma Devi's ca se reD orted in2oo6(4 ) scc Paqe t, w.P No. 4377 of OO7 da u men d e f natural 8 o1 c n nw N 7 also as oer D lslon Bench Jud 1 A P e 4 of o da ed1 o6. n qment of this Co rt da ted 3 '":...|Jl!:!?€#i JJ SN. J !.P 28'121 2022 t9.o9.20L7 passed in W.P. No.272L7 of 2OO1 reported in 2018(2)ALD Daqe 282 and also the Da Bench sto n Judqment of this Court dated 21.O4.2O 20c ssed i n I.A. Nos.1 of 202O in 1 of 2O19 in W.P. No.23( 57 ol 2OL9 reoorted in 2O2O (4) ALD oaoe 379 which tad attained finalitv, within a oeriod of four (O4) weeks 1'r om the date of receiDt of a coD of this order, dulv takin consideration the observations and the law laid dowlby IN the Apex Court in the various iudoments (rel erred to and o.53 of the extracted above), and i ND a rti cular. oara I in the case of State of iudqment of the ADex Court Karnataka v. Uma Devi and dulv comt! unicate the decision to the petitaoner. However. there shal order as to costs. M iscella neous petitions, Petition, shall stand closed. if any, pending in this Writ lt- SD/- r\ SRINIVASA REDDY ASS I TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One fair copy to THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SURI: )ALLI NANDA (For Her Lordship's Kind Perusal) To, 1 2 J The Principal Secretary, The State of Telangana, Panr;l ayat Raj Department' Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Piincipal Secretary, The State of Telangana, Fina r ;e and Planning Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Chief Executive Officer, The Zllla Pr$a Parishad. I ;uryapet District, Suryapet Town. 4- The Chief Executive Officer, The Zilla Praja Parishad, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda Town.

5. The Chief Executive Officer, The Zilla Praja Parishad, Karimnagar District, 6. The Chief Executive Offlcer, The Zllla Praja Parishad, fi/ahabubnagar District, Karimnagar Town. [/lahabubnagar Town.

7. The Chief Executive Officer, The Zllla Pnja Parishad, Nirmal District, Nirmal 8. The Chief Executive Officer, The Zllla Praja Parishad, t\/ulugu District, Town.

9. The Chief Executive Officer, The Zrlla Praja Parishad, Wanaparthy District, Mulugu Town. Wanaparty Town.

10.The Chief Executive Officer, The Zilla Prla Parishad, Jangaon District, Jangaon Town. 1 1 . The Chief Executive Officer, The Zilla Praja Parishad, Medchal tt/alkajgiri

12.11 L.R. Copies. 13. The Under Secretary. Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company

14.The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court District. Affairs, New Delhi- Buildings, Hyderabad '15. One CC to Sri CH. Ganesh, Advocate [OPUC] 1 6. Two CC to The GP for Services-I, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad[OUT] 'l 7. One CC to Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, SC for TG Zilla Parishad[OPUC] 1 B. Two CD Copies TJ GJP q \ t HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:1810712025 ORDER WP.No.28427 of 2022 o(, * a_ ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,'lL<2 k 5,lt tr',6