Indeed vs I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's

Order

Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Rural Development, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, appearing on behalf of the respondent No,2 and Sri. Pradep Reddy Katta, learned Standing Counsel for TG ZPP MPP GPPS, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5.

2. The Deti tioner aooroached the Court seekinq Draver as under: "..to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not treating the services of petitioner as regular one in last grade post for working from 35 long years on full time even not paying legitimate wages of Full Time Sweeper, as per appointment dated 30.12'1987, as unjust, unfair, totally arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 16, 2t, 39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of our Constitution in denying legitimate living wages to petitioner by not implementing Section 13 and 15 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and provisions of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and 4 SN, J \\tp 26168-2022 Govt. Orders from time to time, to pay livirr I wages to petitioner and prays to direct the Respondent; herein to treat the services of the petitioner as regular lne in last grade post from the date of initial app() ntment of 30.12.1987 by applying the decision and prin,t :le laid by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of prer I Singh Vs State of U.P. (2019 (1) SCC 516) and Division E,t nch of this Honble Court in Wp No. 33936 of 2011 and ll rtch Cases dated 02-05-2018 (2020 (4) ALD 37g TS (DB) t)ilowed by decision oF the Honourable High Court of A.p. n W.A.No. 483 of 2021 dated O5/OB/202| based on princi rle laid by the Honourable Supreme Court in C.A. No.12 j I of 2018 Apex Court, dated 23-03-201g to reckon conting,: lt services of petitioner for computation of qualifying service o grant of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits L r releasing consequential monetary benetits in the last l.ade post including periodical increments, as revised from t r te to time with l0Opefcent compensation as per principle l. i I by Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Avtar Chand in C.A.No. 3416 -3445 of 2010 and Batch Cases dat:d 19_02_ 2019 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by apptying rh( aforesaid principles and decisions of the Honourable Apex lourt and Division Benches under Article 141 of our Const -ution by this Honourable Court in the case of petitioner ancl :ass...,, 3 arn d ounsel Detitioner D la crnq relian a ed in su n ar icu I n a ben alf of the ce on the avermen ts lade in th e ort of rat Detition r I h T( ndered bv 5 SN, J wP _26t6E ]022 petitioner with the respondents herein for more than a decade contends thatth e itioner is entitled for the t relief as oraved for in he oresent writ oetition. PER USED THE RECORD:- DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSTON:-

4. Learned counsel aooearinq on behalf of the Detationer submits that the subiect issue in the present case is squarely covered bv the order of this Court, dated O8.O9.2O1O Dassed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 reoorted in 2011(1) ALD, Paqe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O10, dated 10.O6.2013 and a so orde ated 19 09-20L7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 ot 2Ol7 reoorted in 2()18 (2) ALD r d Paqe 282 and also the order dated 2 -o4.202(J 1 DA W.P.No.23057 ot 2OL9 reoorted in 2O2O(41 ALD Paqe 379.

5.L rned sta ndino counsel a nnFrrinat rln behalf of the resoondent No.4 subm its that the orievance of the oetitioner as out-forth in the Dresent w it Petition had not r ressed to the re ondents n date a therefore, the oetitioner can ot comolai n inaction on the Dart of resoondents here in in considerino t eo rreva nce of (\ SN, J wp 26168 2O22 the oetitioner and hence, the relief as orave._'r I for bv the itioner in h resen w eti ron ann ! be oranted and no Mandam us can be issued a oarnstt h e s onden s here u nd er as souqht for and the oetition rma be to out-forth the oetitioner'sq rieva tce as put- rit Petition b wav o adetailed the oresent forth i reDresenta n to the resoondents herein and uDon v receiDt of the said reore sentation. th resDon 1 ents would consade r the same n accordanc e to lavr within a reasonabl e Deriod.

6. Learned counsel aooearino on behalf of tlr : petitioner ' the learned tsston m s not di he sai standinq counsel aooe arinq on beha lf of the _ respondent No.4

7. The Aoex Court in the iudqment r oorted n (2O2O) 1 ) in Prem Sinoh v State of Uttar tl'adesh and scc (L other s, at Dara 6 held as nder: "36. There are some of the employees who have rot been regularized in spite of having rendered the servic,l; for 30- 40 or more years whereas they have been super,t tnuated. As they have worked in the work-charged estat,l shment, not against any particular project, their services rught to 7 SN, J w_26168'2022 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 resutar establishment and the services rendered bv them rioht from the dav thev entered the work-charqed establishment shall be counted as oualifvinq service for ou roose of oension." 8 The Aoex Court in the case of Dharwad District PWD Literate Dailv Wa o e Emolov es Association Vs. state of Karnataka reoorted in 199O(2 scc Paoe 396 laid orinciole t that the State should not keeo a Derson in te Dorarv or r lon s oersons as reqular one. 9 Para No.53 of the of the tudo ment of the A Court in the tate of Karnata and others Vs Umadevi dated 1O.O4.2OO6 re oortedin ( 2006 ) 4 scc 1is e racted hereunder:- 8 SN, J wp_26168 2022 TI t aoDO,ntmen se olai ed in S. em Dloveesmayhave to be conside t _ fhere mav be S (not illeqal _ Naravanaopa ra 11972 (Ll _'4) SCC 5071 lulv qualified s miqht have _ continued to _ without the f tri unal :., vices of such rerl o m rits in th i: Court in the he _ ioht of this s't'umen litres a a one-time t e la' v apoointed, tore in dulv sanctionedoosts but nof under cover ol )r ers fth ensure that :o fill those v fiil du lailv waqers lst be set in r m tion within sax months from th is da te. In .that conte t o tudqment la ri chi e th Union rf Indi lar re u he:i un ls n e ein n rv ce d. d f u h h Il I

10. h d e of th 4 w it 2 othersv Union of India I h os. 3 4 rt ated 20.L2.2024, 20 a ) Anita and I and others 6 and ! he releva nt nd2 at e extracte d here u nder: "12.. Des.pite being labeiled as ,.part. ime workers,." the appellants perform[J l,t ,"r. essential tasks on a daily and contini ous 9 SN, J wp]6168-022 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 assocaated 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. I nnt rme.l nts wa zrf t he work landf ndamen The claim bv the resoond ents that ere not requla r oosts lacks merit, as lrrr 1h

13. +lren rt 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 occasional.

24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means l0 SN. J up 261611 2022 of avoiding payment of employee benefits, t increasing their profits. This judgment undir the principle that the nature of ther performed, rather than the label assigned worker, should determine em ployment sta the corresponding rights and benefr hi hti uch mi w ke e las fa ec ve c e urln( t ! I a a r While the judgment in Uma Devi

26. sought to curtail the practice of backdoor ( and ensure appoi ntments adhered to constitr principles, it is regrettable that its princip r often m isin terpreted or misapplied to legitimate cla ims of long serving emplo yees judgment ai med to distinguish between "irregula r" It ca u! !n em o ere n a a a san to appoint I e a o h e d r s( t a However, the laudabl e inf the judgment is being subverted when instit rely on its dicta to indiscriminatel y re]e( claims of employees, even in cases where appointments are not ill egal, but merely adherence to procedural formalities. Goverr d epa rtm ents often cite the judgment in Umr to argue that no vested ri (su pra ) 9t reg u lariza tion exists for tempora ry emplc ove rlooki ng acknowledgment of cases where regularizat appropriate. TI judgment's t' a aan indi SDensdble servr ces w a rendered decades. t ') I ) X I ! ! l rereby scores to the rs and ;.ft ifvinq ,u pra ) n tries tional s are ThiS egal" ents. ; in 3d in one- rt of Devr ees, r licit n is

27. opinion, In light of these considerations, irr our is imperative for governr lent SN, J wp 26168_2022 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 betterment of labour practices in the country. 2A. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 .LO.2OlB are quashed ; DO f rthwit The aD ellants shall be taken ii. on dutv forthw ith and their larised rvices However, t hea ella nts shall not be a benefits back wa es for the Derlod thev ave not worked for but would be entitled to continu atv of services .l and the same fo I would be counted for their oost- retiral be the said rtErt t2 SN. J trp 26lrrli 2022

11. The Judqment of the Apex Court dat(,. I 31.O1.2 o25 444 "sH PAL NC ANOT HER v. in 2025 I s o N GAR IGA GH I AD" n f . the relevant a x r e anr e ren er e a h n o r os. '15. s en if ce e la rt Workm en s ,ver severa I hi1r a decade. r in full s s l! Emolover'sfa lure to fu rnish stir h ie r e e D n en( hr: I M rall ell- sta I Urt SDrudence. tu I dail an adve rse Indi nla url wstron g lv disfavors -w eo on lqem ents in I cr rcu m sta nces wh€r eth ework is ( rman n tu w I n; who t lfit a on ornq munici Da! eal' after vea r cannot be dismissed summaritv as l lisoensable, ar icul nuln( | CO ntractor aqreement. At th is juncture, it would be ,l )propriate to recall the broader critiq ue of indefinite "temporary" emplo;,|'y1sn1 practices as done by a recent .:dgernent oi this court in Jaggo v. Union of fndia in he following paragraphs: I reoui rements v in th a "22. The pervasive misuse of temporanr employment contracts, as exemplified in this cas(, reFlects a broader systemic issue that adver;ely affects workers'rights and job security. In the pri;te sector, the rise of the gig economy l- i s led to an l3 SN. J \lp 16168 2022 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 governmental operations.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in severa I ways: D t t s an ln o "tem rar m Dlovees. ves workers of hene ts th at La bels: Em o ees oMi suse of "Tem DOra rv enoaoed for workt hat is essential, recu rnnq, stituti on and inteoral to the fu nctiontn of ,,o "co tractua ." eve when their roles mlrror Su ch reo la r misclassi rca ond eD r re U Iar d d nttv- secu ifv- anrl emD lovees are ent rledt o, desoite Derform rno identical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dism issed 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 of their service. ' Lack of Career or duration TemporarY emPloYees often find Progression: t4 themselves excluded from opport I development, promotions, or incremr: They remain stagnant in their rcl systemic disparity between them arr counterparts, despite their contr.i equally significant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shie < rncreasingly resort to outsourcing rolo: temporary employees, effectiveiy re: of exploited workers with another. Tl- only perpetuates exploitation but als: a detiberate effort to bypass the obli reg ula r employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefir employees are often denied funda rr such as pension, provident fund, hea 9nd paid leave, even when tireir decades. This lack of social security and their families to undue hardship, cases oF illness, retirement, ;; circu msta nces. ,, SN, J \rn 2616R 70) ) lities for skill rtal pay raises. )s, creating a j their regular lutions being : Institutions performed by acing one set 's practice not demonstrates tation to offer s; Tg6p6;'6py :ntal benefits Ith insurance, lenure spans ;ubjects them especially in unforeseen The High Court did acknowledge t r

16. l Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. ( lonsequenfly, it ordered re-engagement on daily wagr:: with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regretta:ly, this only perpetuared precariousness: the Appellant VV trkmen were left in a marginally improved yet still unc( rtain status. While the High Court recognized the import lnce of their work and hinted at eventual regularizatior, it Failed to afrord them continuity of service or meaningfu back wages commensurate with the degree of statut( ry violation evident on record. 15 SN. J wp_26168-2022 h llere nnial dut 17 - In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that these workers cannothe esse n tia I releqated to Deroetua! unce ntv. While co ncern s endc omoliance with of municioal budoet recruitmen t rules merit cons derat on, such concerns rof statutorv o I ioation s do not a solve the Emolo Indeed uitabl he led t mate u rea ucrati c limitations b riqhts of workmen who have served co ntinuouslvtn reoular roles for an extended Dertod. de fa !emen n not tru n f the Hioh Court. to the 18. The imouoned order o extent thev confine the Aooellant Workmen to futu re continuitv or dailv-wa o et aside with the meanlnofu! back followinq irections: ment without q hereb VS deq- oao e w 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, L947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service From the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service. l6 SN, J w_26168 2022 II. The Respondent Appellant Workmen posts akin to the duties they previo within four weeks from the date of Therr entire nce (fr<> II coun ted for cont in uitv of serr eliqibili Employer shall reinstate the in their respe,: ive posts (or rt ;ly performed) :his judgment. n the date of ent) shali be ice and all enloritv and for oromotion ifa v. riod of ab ac al tio un en al h III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entifled to 50o/o of : re back wages from the date of their discontinuali)n until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent :mployer shall clear the aforesaid dues within thret: montirs from the date of their reinstatement. r e at h IV. The Resoonde tEm Dlove tiat a fair nd tran r rtz! n on hsf m sid r n eren ial pQsts. fn Em plover shall notim ose r cedural uire ents weren ever Ao oella nt Work men ort stn th I ed vaca cre t!i directed to t _ Drocess for within srx m n( sta! ement, duly rfor ed h v-i a du sa nt ( permanent reoul Oa lt <lla n, ss! nq g cational or ctiv lh' afs ch aool 'rd to the I ila'lv situated Tct hee ch_ duties exist tE ployer shall e ad ministrati ! e processes lon tim em lo 1 res a re not e contrarv to ula em lo ts cta a ex diteall n t efin el ired th !a s retai ed n ut bl atu or

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.,, t7 SN. J wp 26168 2022 t2. The A ex Co tna IUdomentr DO rtedin(2 o L7 )1 Suoreme Court cases 148, i State of Puniab and others VS JAoiit Sinqh a d others at Paras 54 and its sub- Da ras 2 3 o id ud b "54 "Ihe 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 daity-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 daitY wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned post, if appointed after uidergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equatity of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shatl be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. b d nuousl il wa 2 But if ADDOI n tees are not aDoointed a oainst reoular san' tioned posts and their servrces are av iled b talities for a su cient Govern ment or its instru looq oeriod i.e. for7 vears. uch dailv waoe r contractual aoooin tees sha be enti mrntmum ofth e reoular oav scale without anv ,rces on the assum t, nth t work of r nial nature isa ilable and havina worked DE e- an eo itable rioh such lon d c ,m for rsons. created tn suchca reoularization if an mavh ve to conside red seoaratel allv oermissible schem In t ,'mso Sta e. o f f (j) In the event, a claim is made for minimum paY scale after more than three Years and two months of completion of 70 years of continuous working, a daily I8 SN, J wp 26168 2022 wager, ad hoc or contractual employee :;r all be entitted to arrears for a period of three years and tw t months.,, The iudoment of the Aoex Court repor!:d in 2O1O(9) a nd others v of Ka ata a e e 7

13. c K rt nd th rs I a 4 o9 a under:

4. T!9 q;_tg9o !n State of Karnataka v. lLmaa2 on to.q.ZOOA (reoorted in Z1OA G)-SCC i=_ Censtitution Bench or tnis CouiEii tnati,r,, without following the due process or thi- ",t appointment did not conier any right on the courts cannot direct their absorption, regul2 engagement nor make their service per^aie.'r -e)t,. . in exercise of jurisdiction ,'na", C2u rt consututton should not ordinarily issue directiot,s regularization, or permanent continuance unless had been done in a regular manner, in constitutional scheme; and that the courts mL.! ensuring that they do nct interfere unauty iitt arrangement of its affairs by the State or its it) nor lend themselves to be instruments to factlita:, of the constitutional and statutory mandates. illr, . that a temporary, contractuat, casual t r employee does not have a legal right to be nt, un,less he had been appointed in teris of the ret,t actnerence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitut however made one exception to tne aioii-it same is extracted below : /i was rendered 'n that case. a intments made les relating to )ppointees and -ization or re- and the High e 226 of the for absorption, 'he recruitment terms of the t be carefu I in the economic 'trumenta lities, the bypassing ; Court further a daily-wage de permanent ,ant rules or in cn. This Court ;ition and the o a e n cases wh re tr a s b ular AD eats)as explai. R 2a R. 9 a e n rk fo rv nti, n Theouest on d n f o f reou |- 6 i ( DOtn tment: ned n s.v. t n 'here mav be (not illeaal Va ravanappa da a [7972 (7t 4l SCC 5071 ulv qualified : mioht have :ontinued to ut 4/ithout the ot of tribunals. rization of tht servi sof m t a -.1 l9 SN, J wp]6168-2022 I b ran< in the ered o hem lo r, have t'a ha e Court in the cases a bovereferred to and in the LIoht of this udoment. In th t context. the Union of Govern ld take ularize mentalit u rlv a one-time m easure- the serv, ices of such , who have wo ed for ten vears or more aDDOint sanctioned oosts but ot under cover of in du orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that recrular undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned Dosts in cases where reauire to be filled uo, or dailv waoers are bei,no temDo rv emolo now e oloved. The Drocess mu tbesetinm otion within six mo nths from this date. .... recruitmen "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principtes against ' regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the fottowing conditions are fulfilled : (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 70 years or iore in duty sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal' In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten Years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal- But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. (iii) Umadevi casts a dutv uDon the concerned Government or instrumentali ularlv aopo inted reoularize the es who rvices of direc ted that such one-timeme2SUre m rtgt be or tribuna ls.asao ne-time to take steD o adevi, t n ithout the sure. Um those i. tion o fit or 'han ,n o 20 SN. J \p_26 t68.-2022 m d, thin €rx 70 d nths from the date >f dec ton "

6. The term 'one-time measure, has to be Lt p.roper perspective. This would normally mear dgcision in lJmadevi, each department or eiit should undertake a one-time exercise uia-pirg casual, daily-wage or ad hoc emptoyees who h;it foy_ more than ten years withoui tie interventi: trilu.1als and subject them to p.r"ri u,, whether they are working against vacant posts , requisite qualification for the post and'if so services. 7. At the end of six months from the date, Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad_h;;i;., w.ere still pending before Couis. Cons,eqt departments and instrumentalities did not coir time regularization process. On the othe- covernment departments or instrumenta lities one-time exercise exctuding several en1 consideration either on the ground that their cas? in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such cirt., employees who were entitled to- Oe considerei ,, 53 of the decision in umadevi, wilt not ni t t considered for regularization, merely t"."uit Te^:i:e .was completed without considering , .the. six. month period mentioned in pir - be_cause has expired. The one-time exercjse shoutd cart y?5.e./adhoc/those emptoyees who had put r,t continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without prote.ction of any interim orders of ,orrt, or rl employer had held the one-time exercise in ternI, Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of ,ii. i were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of lJmadevi concerned should consider their cases also, as a i the one-time exercise. The one time exercise wttt only when all the emptoyees who are entitled t( tn terms of para 53 of IJmadevi, are so consideret,. tderstood in its that after the instrumentality are a list of all e been working t of courts and 'ification as to nd possess the 'egularize their of decision in ;ual employees ently, several ,ence the one- hand, some undertook the ,loyees from ; were pending ,tnstances, the terms of Para \r right to be the one-time leir cases, or ;3 of Umadevi ider all daily- 10 years of availing the )u nals. If any of para 53 of 'nployees who the employer antinuation of be concluded 5e considered n ts two- fold. First ,5 toen n o n n U u o un ls, be the da te fd ecisiontn n,trD ara 53 of ure th, : those who toats service of courts or nadevlw as ! ntirlt rl; ) o 2t SN, J wDJ6t68]022 to en nsidered Secon A , strumen ered, Dract ceo t , reoularize lhe mon an ten vears. therebv defea na the consti 'utional s Dlovino oe rsons on dailv-wa t e dtou nd tha thev have se statutorY Drovisions relatino to recruitmen ffect of The t. riod, ad- tn vre ih att who h orked fo .2006 date o fan tn ,on tn di. re th n ,1S r ul' sidere essino the reouisite oualificatio vacant Dosts. the emolover has not unde rtaken such ex' the decis ntn rization within six m onths of , ev, or such e reoard to a limited few. will not disentitle such emolovees. the ri'dht to be considered for reoulafl viasaon -time in te measure. ve directio ns in Um softhea tion. I

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

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The oniy further direction that needs be given, in view of umadevi, is that the Zita Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wige/casuat/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so"whether such employei,es (inctuding the respondents) tulfil! the requirements mentioned in para 53 of umadevi. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken bY ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 7 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not futfitl the requirements of- Pira 53 of umadevi, their services need not be regularised' If the emploYees who have completed ten years setvice do not 22 SN, J up 26168 )O22 f:rr::r the educational qualifications prescribe,r, for the post, at ,!._ l?: .of their appointment, they may ie lonsiaered for regu@rization in suitable lower posts. This'appe tl is disposed of accordingly.

14. n he d e urt ir Nihal h d er v ! 1 P o a 13 L4 cc 65, the Supreme Court considered the case c f absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the ;tate, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose clisposat their services were made available. It held that t:l re mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did nol render the appellants ,employees. of those Banks appointment was made by the State and control vested with the State. It held that the :reation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre s a matter exclusively within the authority of the stat€, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but cl.r )se to make appointments of persons creating relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also_ acceDtth e defencethatt herewere no sanct ne and so there ficati srnce the r fused to disciplinary co ntractu a I IU for th l:r r to util ise s s e of ar e u tik th a , lella n ts for 23 SN, J wp 26t68]022 decades. It held that "sanctioned oosts do not fal heaven" and th t the Stat has to c ate them bva conscious choice on the basis of some ra tiona! asses ment Referrin to Umadevi it held that the aDD Ilants of ne before them were not arbitrarilv chosen, their i n itia ! tment was not an 'irreo ular' aooo tment as it had l^,I t P ti eA 61 be heard to sav tha theY are ot entitled to be anto t e services of the Sta e on Derm anent their aDoointmen ts were Durelv basis as, accordinotoi tem rarv and not aoainst anv sanction ed oosts c bv the State. It w s held that the iudq ent in Umadevi e State and its instrumenta lities an d neith rt he Government of ot become a licence for exol at on bv th t n with Ban ir ob n tn es h f n accordance with the Constit ution.

15. The iudoment of the A D Online c1 797 hetween .Srini vas ulu B u exC rtr eoorted in2o15 th rs v nd o Nell re Munici oal Cor l, oratio n Reo.b its c m mlsslon er. 24 SN. J wp_ 26168 2022 N or Distri ct An hra Pra desh andother:i in particular a 8 a u r (7) t ado ted r k-tes_ulErEelpn 1 _Ibe aBpellatt )nlv prior to the I _ro lheissae__aI ( tng a statutory i e of the above ,lmost 20 years t: and continued -by G.O. till today. The respondent Munic body is obtiged by the G.O. 212(supra). mentioned G.O. the responden without regularising the to extract work from the appellants. 8. In the circumstances, refusing the benet t of thc above mentioned G.O. on the oround tnri tn"-upi"ir.,ts approarnea ,!:-..r:!:1", be!?tedty, i.n our opinion, is not t tstitied. rn the c-tlcum.slancgs, the appeal is a owed modifyinq'r1e order under directing that the appeilants, ,"iii", ie regutarised app,eal with etfect from the date of .'iheir ,"_it"iiii" :ietr rive year con_tinuous service as was laid down Of tiir',_;uft in District collector/Chairperson & others vs. i.t.'siigi ,t brs. zols (B) SCC 480. 16. fn A ar :d (2O1s )a SCC 265. the Suoreme Court held that .Tt e objective behind the exception carved out in this case v, rs to permit regularization of such appointment, which ,r -e irregular but not illega!, and to ensure appointment:; which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure ;ecuritv of r: I the State alities for m c re than ten f(r 29 ea rs. Government and therr n ha ca e a w ki tnstr u m lo rs". e s t n e a s 25 SN, J wp _26t6a_2022 d n rlier view x re ed M.L.Kesari extracted abo ve. L7. In Jarkh ndvK amal P rasad reoorted ln 20 7 223 imilar vtew w s Suoreme Court and it was hel as follows w tentious issue that the resoonde t emolo rical ndin he ca f fac rele vant con con nuous tr se lv therefore- the H, tn rfered h ed for bv this Court." n70 d al Drrnc,Dle laid down bv vU 53 e 'ho 7 Div ton the me t

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

19. Th d m h M ndi stV ate o Mahar shtr and A xCo rt in Hari Kri hn 26 SN. J \rp 26 t68 2022 in Af 2 2 s m 9 a , rrticula rDa ra Nos. 100 an 101 hel as follows: "100. The H Article 226 o power to iss mandamus, igh. Co_urts exercising their ju f the Constitution of India, no ue a writ of mandamus or ir r t I I m f E r sd iction u nder only have the the nature of <ercise such rlic authoritv ex rct ed ra ul or as exercised trrelevant all such cases..t[e,High Court must ssue a writ of l0_r__L mandamus and give direction's to iorp"il, iiormance in an appropriate and lawful manner 'of t re discretion conferred upon the Government or a public ,i tno.ity.,, B n

20. The Divi rt n it s Judqment dated 10 .06.2 o13 passed inw.4. Nos 78 of 2:i t1 OandS 54 f 2012 w it c u In t o8.09 .201(} t t a se tn w.P. No. 4 7 o d c () 8 f2 o8 ^off ved as und er: - "Further, it is manifest from the material on r€ :"^iyl*r of rhe simitarty placed persons;;" ;;r;= Lourts were regularized. The appeltanl_C";#:r , ice orders/circula rc iut"J io. i r:i;;:i va rio^u s uo.LU.2uu/ and latest being 4,7.2009 for re: casuat/con[ract employees, ttls atso to-Ue ;;""';i I ot the ID Acr prohibits unfair fuUouip.u.ii.f 'Ol' or workman. As can be seen from th; fa;t;;ii( ::::,r_ "" hand, engaging the respondents foisui '-uflunuous period of time on casual basis is notlt labour pra*ice attracting ttre provisiJn-s-';i #;,; ID Act. The Iearned Sing"le Judge *h1" ."fyiig ;r. :ord that the rched the iaw n a lso issued 7L.O9.1992, r larization of rt Section 25- :ny employer snario of the 1a long and -tg but unfair 25-T of the :he decisions 27 SN, J \tp:2616t _2022 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." 2t. The D ivision Benc of this Co rt in its Judoment dated L9.O9.2OL7 Dassed in W.P.No.27217 o 2017 reoorted in 2O18(2)ALD Daoe 282 at Dara 16 and ara 18 observed as under:- "16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the p.ovisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.t994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time absorption/regula rization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India' The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in IJma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regu la rization/a bsorption exist' No.2 1(,0 G.O. n the widrh and t h e hittle t r Act qq4- do not

22.4. ow.l n Man r ctio h s Su me Cou rt in Para 53 of its udoment r nde o.21,2. dated 22.4 -19 94 to etitaoners. vvho have resoondentsto kes Ms. criter ia laid down in P Devi's ca (suora). ter t UE Uma Devt s i ble 2 of 199 4 and G. o. nt o tisfied the ara No.53 of the iu oment in uma r Act de n ad mltted tl a 28 SN. J wp 26168 2022

18. For the aforementioned inO A No.1442 of 2014, on th n I e h fnsDecto rs andaoDoint u reasons, order, : *ed 27 ,6.2017 , e file of the Trit,r nal is set aside ! rection to the of I he services of ca lcies of Work terrsatisfv 1 : iudoment in Dl, of us! beco DI B ofa t subiect 5 e f f t_ w inP .Th th d r r m nth m Dev h n s 22. T e er." ron Ben a 2L o4. o2 a edi I P o.2 O57 ol 201 c !:s Judoment No 1of o2 tn 1ot2 19 o 2 ) 4)ALD o qe 37 a r ar s45 48 nd e s ! nder:- 50 )11:.Il::"^ ,:,1-o_ oj.f:r" that petitioners have r,r en workins on oarry wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) yeari of service by now. They have been given minimum t me-scare from the year 2000. They have been- continuousiy ,i trting without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 titt aat i. 48 It tsn otk own wh ( rent has not f (suora)- as e exola i ned in M.L. Kesari s case (suora) and rndertakena n 1 dailv waoe e emolov ees who ad ork 1n (1O'l years he in e 1 bunals as on d 'l 'ication a to 1: oosts and andifs o, b ar w e 10 4.2 o6 r atlz th tm ex 1st D s v d U f h s

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed he impugned orders dated 20.g 2019 passed by the 1st respo Jent rejecting the cases of petitio n ers for regularization of se /tces on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitraryar I violative of Articles 14 16 and 2 1 of the Constitution t India; the r e :-time basis ) petitioners f servi :s from the o t om le s s 10 w e h n e I ,l r I ( l ! I 29 SN, J *p 26168_2022 v shall not be their aooointment. But, th initial dates lief. f.r r n m n done within two 2 ) weeksf rom the date of receiot of { coov of the o rder." x r ise sh Tha cri:l ()nines that in the Drese

23. This Court resoonde ts failed to disch their dutv in examtntnq r reoulariza ion of the request of the Detitioner oetitaon er's services, whoisworkin as full time sweeDer tI eat the tem Dora rv t and further to consid r his ed ues servrce of the oetitaone r n t he last r rade oost off !l tim e sweeDer s reo ular one for ll ou r Doses bv orantin o last iodical in rement orade D v with a time from the date of aoDointmen of the Detitioner. ln revised from ime to r t accordalcelQ latt{g

24. This Co rt ooines that oetitioner is entitled for consideration of Detiti one rts of the relief as DraYed for in the [,resent writ Petitaon in view of the obse rvatao ns of heA DEx lnv rtous iudomen ts se for o t ( d to and extr acted above a n d the view of ) Division Bench o this Court n the IUdo f refer ed to and extracted above. 30 SN, J wp 26168 2022 ns!

25. a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances ol the case. b) The submissions made by the lear.r red counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner orrd rear., red standing counsel appearing on behalf of the responderrt Nos.4 & 5. c) The observations of the Apex Court irr the various judgments (referred to and extracted abovr:l and again enlisted below: i) (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) (ii) 1990(2) scc page 396 (aii) 2025 rNSC 144 (iv) 2o24 Law Suit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2077) 1 ScC 148 (vi) 2010(9) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scC 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Ontine SC L7g7 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2o06) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O 11 ( 1) ALD, page 234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this Oourt dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.7g2 ot 2O10 irnd g54 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment dated )g.O9.2O10 3l SN. J wp 26t68_2022 passed in W.P.No.24377 ol 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 19.O9.2017 passed in W.P.No.272l7 ol 2OL7 (reterred to and extracted above), f ) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l ot 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23O57 ot 2OL9 (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. The Writ Petition is allowed, the oetitio ner ts directed to out-forth the claim ft he oetitio er for reo u la rizationof Detitioner's servtces anda of the oetitioner to treat the tem DOra oetitioner i n the last o radeo wee eras reoular services of the st of s lso t clai m for all o u rooses b rantino I ast o r ade o v with oeriodical increments revi d m t lmetot !me mthe date of ointmen f the I n e u nti ben efits dulv e c ostnoa the relev a nt docume ts in 32 ner' tion wt iod of ne SN, J W_26168 -2022 -fo hi I the present lek f m the l, 1 s date of Jece ipt of cooyofth hal ex st er and thr: r sDonden ts e me n €l' :cordance to law tn nf mt rov tn ano tn er o o U AD vi' ca wl h atur, rl iustice bv ersona I h a ed re Suoreme t o 20 t. Dassed in W.P.N o.24 77 of _ 2OO7 dated a SCC Pao in 2O1 t ALD P C:2 34 and as of 2O1O da d 10.t)13.2O13, and t of thi Cou rt dated m con med ln W.A.No.782 a e Div sron Bench theiu dqm o 9 1 l reoorted in 20 18( 2)ALD DA qe 282 and alsot e Divi ;ion Bench m t d te 2 o4 o2 lDa ssed tn .Nos.1 of202Oin1 of 2019 in W.P- No.23 {57 of 2019 79 whi hh : rd attai ed f his Cou an 2O2 ALD a e 4 I n d g m the date ipt of a coDV of this order, dulv .l akino into n and hel wl 1d down bv bs rv n EA e c rt tn t e various ud fc) red to and JJ SN, J w 26164:n22 extracted above). and in oarticular, para No.53 of the m nt of the A c, in th c, se of KArnatz v. Uma Ilcw I nAtl UI ommunrca ta 1}ra n the etiti er. w ver here sh order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. Sd/-AH.S. GOWRI SHANKAR SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTICE (For Her LadYshiPs Kind Perusal) ALLI NANDA To,

1. The Principal Secretary. Panchayat raj Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

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

3. The District Collector and Chairman for Minimum Wages Committee and District Selection Committee, Suryapet District' TS.

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Suryapet District, Suryapet Town.

5. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer' Huzurnagar Mandal, Suryapet District, TS. 6. 11 LR Copies 7. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

8. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High Court Buildings, HYderabad.

9. One CC to SRI CH.GANESH, Advocate [OPUC] 10. One CC to SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, SC FOR TG ZW, MPP & GPPS loPUCl l1.Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

12.Two CCs to GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI l4r 13. Two CD CoPies CC TODAY .. if S'i/ri'f 1\+ C) C) 2': lrt .\.ll*:,= ,( l l. ,- 1..a - r, ,,i'\ Oli " ')l ''t ,-\ ,!.i J-- -^,",rrill' ..-..? HIGH COURT DATED: 2410712025 ORDER WP.No.26168 of 2022 ALLOWNG THE WRIT PETITION, WTHOUT COSTS \$ \7 )A