C. Narsimha v. The State of Telangana

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 and 3, learned Assastant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, and Sri C. Kalyan Rao, learned Standing Counsel for TG ZPP MPP GPPS, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4. 2 The oetitioner aooroache the Court seekino Draver as under: "...pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus lo declare the action of the Respondents in not treating the services of petitioner as regular one in last grade post for working from 37 long years on full time even not paying legitimate wages of Full Time Sweeper, as per appointment dated 03-09-1984, as unjust, unfair, totally arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 16, 2L, 39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of our Constitution in denying legitimate living wages to petitioner by not 4 SN, J \"to 25975 2022 implementing Section 13 and 15 of Minim..:n Wages Act, 1948 and provisions of Equal Remuner ltion Act, t976 and Govt. Orders from time to time, to pay living wages to petitioner and prays to rl rect the Respondents herein to treat the servic,:; of the petitioner as regular one in last grade post from the date of initial appointment of 03-09-1984 tr, applying the decision and principle laid by the Hor'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs State of t .P. (2019 (1) SCC 516) and Division Bench of this Hor'ble Court in WP No.33936 of 2011 and Batch Cases iated 02- 05-2018 (2020 (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) fr> lowed by decision of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. ir W.A.No. 483 of 2021 dated 05-08-2021 based on pli rciple laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. N,t 1254 of 2018 Apex Court, dated 23-03-2018 t ) reckon contingent services oF petitioner for com I ltation of qualifying service to grant oF pension, gr'; tuity and other retirement benefits by releasing co- iequential monetary benefits in the last grade post including periodical increments, as revised from tir.'r I to time with 100o/o compensation as per principle l;r 1 by Apex Court in the case oF Union of India Vs. Avt;r Chand in C.A.No. 3416 - 3445 of 2010 and Batch (.; ses dated 19-02-2019 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by a:rtying the aforesaid principles and decisions of the Hrt r'ble Apex Court and Division Benches under Article :41 of our 5 SN. J wp-259'15 2022 Constitution by this Hon'ble Court in the case of petitioner and pass...".

3.L rrat t rned counsel anneartn d o n b h Alfoft r liance on the +e made in +]ra n affidavit filed in suoDort oft hCD resent writ Detition rticu I r o render petitioner with the resoondents herein for more than a decade conten ds that the Det t toner ts en itle t d for the t ra ed for i the resen PERUSED THE REGOBD:- DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION :-

4. Learned counsel aoDe fln o on behalf of the ner subm n case is sq uarelv covered bv he order of thas Court. dated 9 P N .243 f 2()07 d

2OLL(L ) ALD. Paoe 234 as confir din w.A. No -782 of dated 1 .o9 -20L7 2O1O. dated 10. 6.2013 and also o oassed in W. P. No.272L7 of 2 17 reDorted in 2O1 A (2) ALD orde r Paoe 282 a nd also theo de r r dat 2L-O4.2020 oa ssed in W.P.No.2 o5 7 of 2O19 re D(lrted n2O 20 4) ALD Pa oe 379. ( 6 SN, J wp 259'75 2022

5. Learned standinq counse AD eaflno on _ rehalf of the resDon ent No.4 submits that the orievi nce of the petitioner as Dut-forth in the oresent Writ Pel ition h ad not T] been a dressed to th resDondents erein as on date and therefore, the petitioner cannot complaan inj ctaon on the oart of resoondents h rein in consid rinq thr: orievan ce of r h r lief etition r s onden ! d for bv the oetitioner in the oresent Wit petition cann,]: be oranted and no Mandamus can be issued aoainst th, hereun er as souqht for and the petitir 2 rer mav be directe to out-forth the Detitione 's qrie'l lnce as Dut- forth in the oresent Writ Petition bv wav rf ad etailed tataon to the respondents herein and upon repres of the sa id reorese tation. the resD(), rdents would he same in accorda nce to l.1v, within a consid reasonable period. 6 Lea rned coun se! aDDeari o on beh lf of t he oet itio ner does not disoute the said submission made q y the learned ann o f I No.4 r 7 SN. J w_2597 s_2022

7. The A x Court in thei udoment scc ( L&S) in Prem Sinoh v State of Uttar Pradesh and oorted in (2o20) I others. at oara 36 held as under: "36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularlzed in spite of having rendered the services for 30- 40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case servlces 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 the work-charoed establishment shall be counted as o ual ifvin o service for rtu oose of oe nsion. " r 8 D .I Em r in 199 t A w a t v that the Sta shoul d ot keeD a rso NI temoorarvor 8 SN, J vt1 _2s9'7 5 _7022 adhoc s for lono oeri a VE _ :o treat such Derson s as reo ular one.

9. ParaN .53 of th of arn a of the iudo ent of ! te Aoex Court sv Llr nadevi, dated Dorted tn (20061 4 SCC l. is extracted a h 10 4.2 6 hereund r:- 4 m CR lar a N. Na 1 for t f measu re, these rvice ofs uch o av w o rt or r lar r n f c e n h e ar b n motio n within ix t, n r n an s a u a r r e t e o r fied. t-he re mav (not ill qal _ NaravanaDoa 2ta 1L972 (Ll 4) SCC 5071 lulv oualified s mioht have _ continued to _ without the of tribunals. 'vices of such on merits in ; Court in the liqht of this of India, the rumentalities a one-time trreo ular lv aopointed, norern dulv ers fth s r :; f t R u h 5 r ensure that to fill those k n t be filied uo, dailv waoers e set tn i ! r ust b s isd at I

10. m n heA ex cou SN, J qP 25915-2022

2.2 24 reDorted 3n 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 in Jaooo Anita and v. Union f a h r and t e n ra ra hN hereu nder: 4 2 27a xtracte "12. Despite beang labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants performed these essentia! tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. l. f iha natu re The clal m rrrnr.lz nerfo resDo ndents 13. these were not reoular oosts lacks merit, as ad hrr tha + h appetlants was perennial and fundamental to the functionino of the offices. The recu rring 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. r0 \tp_259 1 5 SN, J -2022

24. The landmark judgment of the UniteJ State in the case oF Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporat r n 197 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a p(ltinent example from the private sector, illustraUr g the consequences of misclassifying employo |s to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as indep( ndent contractors, thereby denying them enr rloyee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for thr: Ninth Circuit determined that these workers w€ -e, in fact, common-law employees and were enti led to the same benefits as regular employees. Th: Court noted that Iarge Corporations have incret singly adopted the practice of hiring tenr )ora ry employees or independent contractors as a neans of avoiding payment of employee benefits, ll ereby increasing their profits. This judgment under;cores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned :o the worker, should determine employment stalr s and the corresponding rights and benefit;. ft hiohli hts the iudiciarv's role in rec! rfvino such misc la s ificati on s and ensu rl n (1 that workers recei ve fair treatment. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (;upra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor ,:ntries and ensure appointments adhered to consti_ rtional principles, it is regrettable that its principl :s are often misinterpreted or misapplied tc deny legitimate claims of long serving employer: This judgment aimed to distinguish between 'llegal,, appoin. l1ents. It teqoricallv held that e Dlov( )r )s tn lrreo ular aooo ntments. who were enqal red in dulv sanctioned posts and had g erved conti n uouslv for more than ten vears ! hould be considered for reoularizationas ! one- time measure, However, the laudable ir t:nt of the judgment is being subverted when insti utions rely on its dicta to indiscrim ina tely rej,::t the claims of employees, even in cases wher-r their " irregular" r SN. J 5 _2022 -2591 appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, judgment's explicit overlooking the acknowledgment of cases where regularization is tve aoolication distorts appropriate. This sel the iudoment's soirit and puroose, effectivelv weaDontzln o at aoainst emolove who have indisoensable services over rendered decades.

27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperatlve for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with anternational standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to foltow, 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 .2018 a re q uashed ; t2 SN, J 5 _2022 |tp -2591 The aooellants shall be1- taken !!. backon utv fo hwith and_ their rwith. Ho ever. the aooellants shal! Jot be entitled oe<1 tn la rv benefits/back waoes for the l reriod thev have not worked for but _ vould be entitled to continuitv of sr: 'vtces for the said period and the _ same wouldbe counte for their _ Dost- retiral benefits." a nv

11. The Judoment of the Aoex Court datr reDorted in 2O25 INSC 144in" SHRIPAL ANT 3L.OL.2 2 NOTHER v NAG AR NIGAM, GHAZI ABAD", in Darti ular L the relevant e r ct os,1 to1 '15. It is manr st thattheA oell E nt Workmen contin uouslv rendered their serv tces _ over several sometime s soannin qmo re th:n a decade- Even if ce tn muster rolls were n t or r duced in full, the Emolo er's fa ilure to furn ishs ch reco rds- des ite direction s to do so-al lowsI an adverse i nference labour T qlv disfavors Iaoements in I g ermanent in o fulfi ,r' after vear n cannot be dis issed sum a rilv as disoe n sa ble, DA rticu I a r!v in n tra ctor tual dailv-wa qe or contractual er wel!-esta blistt,:d w w ker f a oenut te the ab ence Der Irc r u nder w t l'iF-l M t n a n L l3 SN. J wp]597 5 _2022 aqreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v, Union of India in the following paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse oF temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government 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 several ways: . Misu e of "Temoor rv Labels: E olovees work tha t and in ora to the u n tonino of an rn "temDora rv" or are o n "contra ual." even w en their roles m ! rror f Iabelled as t t4 SN. J ,"p 259'15 2022 esDr Ees. Such 3rs of the _ lhat reoular ! l oerforminq mDlo mt sclassification d ortves wori( dio itv, securitv. a nd ben re e ntitled to. emDlovees identical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary :mployees are frequently dismissed without cause or rofice, as seen in the present case. This practice rr tdermines the principles of natural justice and subje(: s workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardles: of the quality or duration of their service. . Le :k of Career Progression: Temporary employee:: often find themselves excluded from opportur ities for skill development, promotions, or incremer tal pay raises. They remain stagnant in their rol€ s, creating a systemic disparity between them ar< their regular counterparts, despite their contr I utions being equally significant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shielc: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing role : performed by temporary employees, effectively rel) acing one set of exploited workers with another. Tr s prictice not only perpetuates exploitation but als I demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obti lation to oFfer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Beneli employees are often denied fundarr such as pension, provident fund, her and paid leave, even when their decades. This tack of social securitv and their families to undue hardshi I cases of illness, retirement, () circumstances. " s: Temporary ental benefits Ith insu ra nce, ten u re spans ;ubjects them especially in u nforeseen

16. The High Court did acknowledge , re Employer,s inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequenily, it ordered re-engagement on daily wag t s with some t5 SN, J wP_25975 2022 measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record. L7. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P' Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev were enqaoed in essent ial, oerennial d uties. these workers cannotbe releqa ed to oerDet ua u ncerta i ntv. While concerns of municioal bu comoliance with recruitm nt rules merat co sideration, such concerns t not ab n I d he I ott +lm rlo hrrralt riohts of wo rkmen who havese ed continuo uslvtn de fact ran extended oeriod. reoular roles e ut t Ga ianc arnn ic limi r -i + oh Court. to the 18. The imouoned extent thev confine theAooellant Workmen to future dailv- aoe enoao ment without continuitv or rdero f the Hi o l6 SN, J \\p -2591 s _2022 inqful back waqes, rs herebv set ; side with the m followino di recti ns: I. The discontinuation of the Appe lrnt Workmen,s services, effected without compliance ^/ith Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.p. Industrie I Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. AI orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appe lant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in se -vice from the date of their termination, for all purg oses, including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shalt reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respec :ive posts (or posts akin to the duties they previot sly performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. tr m the date of T termination until actuat reinstatel t) shal be c ser / e n n fi as _ senioritv and el iq i bi litv for o motio ns, if a nv. III. Considering the length of servic: the Appellant Workmen shall be entifled to 50o/o of he back wages from the date of their discontinu. tion until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within thrt:: mont'hs from the date of their reinstatement. e u c n a f €r IV Th i: ; directedto m initiate a fair and tra nsDa ren t orocess for req ula rizi o the Aooellant w rkrJ en within six t; tement, dulv consid erinq the fact that thevha re performed Deren niaI municipal duties akin j o permanent Losts. fn reqular zation, the ucatio al or Em o Dro cedura I criterra h lll m tsw a p lied to the Aooellant Work !m lrlv situated retroa ctiv assessin q en or v e r ( .! € t7 SN, J wp-25915_2022 n requ la r emolovees in he oast. To th extent ca ct sf ties x! or are ouired, the Re Dondent Emolo er shall exoedite all necessarv administrative orocesses to ensure these lonotime emolovees are not indefini elv retained on dailv waoes co trarv to statuto and eouitabl norms. 19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed." L2. The Aoex Court in a iudoment reDort .n (2OL7) L Suoreme Cou rt Cases 148, in State of Pun ab and others vs Jaoiit Sinoh and others at Paras 54 and its sub-oa ra s (1)(2)(3). of the said iudoment observ ed as under: "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 daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The full bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Cou rt in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder: - "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2) But if dailv waoers, ad hoc or contractual aooointees are not aooointed aoainst reoular o tsa tr services are ava I8 SN. J \\,P 25915'2022 m Go I n I tor its instrumen talities tual aDDO'N tees shall h o ft, hoc or con t u allowances ont e assumDtio d v, Deruod of ted in suc'h cateo rv of n u a time, ane ou, rso s t ttv he ' a sufficient I t waoers, ad ! e entitled to _ without anv f* work of t S--werked-fol ! tble rioht is l_\eir claim for !e considered i! tle scheme. (3) In the event, a claim is made for mitl' Tum pay scale Li", .or" than three years and lt'o months of completion of 10 years of continuous t trking, a daily wag'er, ad hoc or contractual employee st i ll be entitled to "rirrt for a period of three years and tw) months"' rt da 2010 (9)

13. The iudqment of the A ex court re scc 247 State ofK a rnata and others, ln Da rticu Iar, Dar s4:o9rea ds as a ard othe v M.L. Kesari under: (4) SC

4. The deciston in State of Karna taka v. Umao( vi was c 1) in 200 on1 0.4.2006 ( reDorte t-oLhal--eese-,-a Constitution Bench of this Court held that ap. )intments made without following the due process or the r rles relating to appointment did not confer any right on th':' appointees and trization or re- courts cannot direct their absorption, regLl t, and the High engagement nor make their service permanc t :le 226 of the Court in exercise of iurisdiction under Ar:' s for absorption, Constitution should not ordinarily issue directic't regularization, or permanent continuance unle; ' the recruitment hid been done in a regular manner, tr terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts 11 tst be careful in ensuring that they do not inteffere unduly uv th the economic urr"ngi*"nt of its affairs by the State or its nstru menta lities' nor tend themselves to be instruments to factltt tte the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates -his Court further held that a temporarY, contractual, casual or a daily-wage emptoyee does not have a tegal right to be nade permanent uri.ti nu had been appointed in terms of the ''levant rules or in I ( € l9 SN, J wP 2s975_2022 adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : "53. One asoec needs to be clari. ere r 7 cc 507 a and referred to in oara lS above, of duly oualified e 28 s. and B c4 an u 79 7 7 . There mav be d h , nti, work for ten veats or more but without the ntion of orders of the courts or of tribuna ls. estion of The o s ularization of the se Ies b t. e n iudomen L fn that con 'xt. th G s should Court n the cases abovereferre d to and tn the lidht of th ion of I ndia. the State vernm erts and mentali ke steos to reoularize as a one- time measu re. the servi' ularlv m ,n dulv sanctioned nosts but nof under cover of orders of the courts or of tribuna ls and should ur?her ensurc Unde ken to those vacant sanctioned DOSTS uD. in cases where temoorarv emD s or dailv waoers are beino sf be setin otion now emolo recruitmen h Drocess of such i, rcc,ular reoutre m U n I thin six months from this da "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularization, enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfi ed : (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentatity should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee shoutd not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or 20 continued against sanctioned posts or .w.hert iio,inted di not possess the prescribed minimu 1 tEE-upiiirt.unts wilt be considered to be illega" ;;r;;; employed possessed the prescribed .qu, iias working against sanctioned posts, but ha'1 without undergoing the process of open comp': such appointments are considered to be irregula' SN, J wp-25975 2022 the persons qualifications, But where the ,lifications and been selected itive selection, e f t u n u t\ z concerned steDS e lv AD ,n ten vears lfim orders of ea t lfe U ade vr, Et be set in ,f its decision ,r u ore t r ,o t e measure o 'n a t r t w olovees who had se n a ne-t o. te .! dire cted that such m tion wit, o e ins xm th fro o 6. The term ' one-time measure' has to be Lt DroDer PersPective. This would normally mear -iiiii"i in'tJmadevi, each department or eac\ sii,un unaertake a one-time exercise and pretl iiial, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who h't for more than ten years without the intervent'( tribunals and subject them to a process r( iiietner they are working against vacant post! requisite qiatification for the post and if so services. 7. At the end of six months from the da't lJmtatdevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad --hoc/ c were siill pending before Courts' Conset departments and instrumentalities did not co'1 tim" regularization process' On the ott t Co,i"rri"nt depaftments or instrumentalitie: one-time exercise excluding several (l iionsideration either on the ground that their ca. ii iouns or due to sheer oversight' In such ci. who were entitled to be considere'1 "iiiiv*t is'of'tn" decision in lJmadevi, will not lose cinsidered for regularization, merely becatt exercise was completed without considerin 1 i"rurt" the six month period mentioned in p a i)t Z*pir"a. The one-time exercise should c iage/adhoc/those employees who had pu' ,derstood in its that after the instrumentalitY are a list of all ,e been working n of cou rts and rification as to tnd possess the regularize their of decision in tsual emPloYees uently, several mence the one- r hand, some undertook the nployees from es were Pending 'cumstances, the in terms of Para :heir right to be e the one-time their cases, or 'a 53 of Umadevi tnsider all dailY' in 70 Years of ( 2l SN, J wp-25915 2022 continuous seryice as on 10.4.2006 without avaiting the protection of any interim orders of cou rts or tribunats. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Llmadevi, the emptoyer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise witt be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered,

8. The o iect behind the said direction in Umade.vi is two- fo ra 53 of First is to ensure that those who aJ aa ntinu u without the o tection of anv inte m orders of courts or tribun als before theda te of decision in Umadevi was f tn tr conside ce. larization in vi' ensure nd' eir I' lities do not dana*naanlc raahtala Dractice of emDlovino Dersons on ilv-waoe/ad- r lond oeriods and then oeriodicallv hoc /casua I reoularize them on the oround that thevh ave served for more than ten vears, therebv defeatina the constitutional or statu ry Dlovrstons latino to recruitment and ADDO intment. The true effe t of the direction is that all tn 4.2006 *ha Drotection of nv interim order of anv court or tribunal, in vacant Dosts. DO.s.se.sSTnO the re utstte T'Ualification. are entitled to be considered for regularization. The fact that the emolover has not undertaken such exercise of reoulariza n within the decision in months of Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken onlv in a limited few- will not disentitle such reoard emDlovees. the riqht to be considered for reoularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure. for more than ten of decis ho ha il utilhalj o

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

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with 22 law. The onty further direction that needs be gt' lJmadevi, ii tnat the Zila Panchayat, Gad= undertake an exercise within six months, a go' regularization exercise, to find out whether the r wige/casual/ad -hoc emptoyees serving the Zila I so-whether such employees (including the re t the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umactt them, their services have to be regularized ' If s has already been undeftaken by ignoring or orr of respondents 7 to 3 because of the pendenc'.r then their cases shall have to be considered i''r the said one time exercise within three months' say that if the respondents do not fulfill the Pira 53 of LJmadevi, their services need not b the employees who have completed ten years possess tie educational qualifications prescribec 'the time of their appointment, theY may b? regularization in suitable lower posts' This app accordinglY. = SN, J wp]597 5 -2022 rcn, in view of 7 should now eral one- time are any dailY = anchayat and if nndents) fulfill vi. If theY fulfill tch an exercise itting the cases of these cases, continuation of 't is needless to 'equirements of ' regularised. If service do not for the post, at considered for tt is disposed of rti t Nihal Sinqh 4sc L4, I o x d .st o n 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of Special Police Officers appointed by ther wages were Paid bY Banks at whose ( services were made available. It held that that wages were paid by the Bank did rt appellants 'employees' of those Banl< appointment was made by the State atr controt vested with the State. It held that tlt cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cad" rf absorPtion State, whose isposal their :he mere fact rt render the ; since the I disciPlinarY : creation of a : is a matter {" 23 SN, J utp_259'15 2022 exclusively within the authority of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also refu dto service d us ifi were n h s of laroe num ber of oeoo le like the aone llants for It held that "sanct oned osts do not fall from has to create them bva I t the sta ration e basi heaven" and Referrt n Uma vi. it held that the ao I la nts h r ril h tr aoDo rntment wasnot an 'irreo ula r' DDO tment a n it had been made in acco anc t e with h statutorv o rocedure riFArcaF ibed rrnr{er fha E'olice A r-j 1 aAr nd the Sta that th ot entitled into the services of the State on Dermanent basis as. accordino to t- th IT ADDointments w re ourelv temoora and not aoatnst nv sa nctioned DOS s created bv the S te. It was held that the iudoment in Umadevi cannot become a licence for exoloitation bv the State and ,\A SN, J \vp_25915 2C)22 its i nstru ment lities Puniab nor tho either the Gc,t ernment of ic secto rBa ks can co tinue sucha th their oblioation ofu nction in ! t ent wl acco rdan with the Co stitut on. 15. scC Online Sc L79 Ne llore Muni ioa! 'te in2 15 7 between B.Srinivasulu rnd othe Corooration Reo.bv its ( )m issioner, tn Da rticu la r v Nellore Dis trict, Andhra Pradesh and oth er a s7 ndSr s tn se ve be (7) We find it difficult to accept the reasonir ! adopted bv the 1k regularization Hiq Court. The riaht of theaD llants to se !. The appellant flows from the G.O. No.21 2 dat 22.4. 199 \- cnlv prior to the ice of efi L to the issue of ) )ing a statutory ) te of the above ' almost 20 years t s and continued respond e nt M u n ici Pa I itv G.O. till todav. The the G.O. 212(suPra). Insl body is obliged bY respondents kePt quite fo mentioned G.O. the without regularising the service of the appella' to extract work from the appellants. s o In the circumstances, refusing the ber < fit of the above 8. ientioned G.O. on the ground thai the appel ?nts approached the Tribunal belatedty, in our opinion, is no: iustified' In the iiirr.ttirrc"t, the appeat is atlowed modifyinq the order under ;pi"l ;i directing iiat the appetlants' se.rui.t:t s .be regularised ii'tn effect from lhe date of their completirtt their five year continuous service as was laid down by thi: Court in District Cotie:ctor/Chairperson & Others vs. M'L' Singh & ors' 2009 (8) SCC 480,

16. In A scc 265. the Suo eme C Bih rre t rted (2O15) 8 ouft held that 'fhe obiective r 25 SN, J wp 25975 2022 behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularization of such appointment. which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not iltegal, and to ensure security of r ns wh ds rv d h s for vea rs". Th is decislon aoD ves In that case, emolovee was workino for 29 vea rs. arlier view exDressedin M.L.Kesari extracted ab ve. L7. In S ate of .I a rkha ndv amal Pr w was Suo me Co rt and itwash eld as follows: 7 4 r a 2 3 eDort ed in h vtew of the cataalrflce I fi,ndi dof U,s ,s-sue that the te-s '47 rele nt conten have continued in th uouslv the fore. U, 'c7 aooli' stotheo Hioh Court has rrohtlv Co s€i nt ceses interfered with by this Court.,, ndent emD vees ice for more than 7O vears do nbv ole laid taka v t ara TheDiv, ton Bench 5DO f the eld that State o L s rrtrnct the re the reli'

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.LZ.ZO2Z passed in W.P.No.27602 ot 2O19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha 26 SN, J , p 25975 2022 Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda Dit trict' which had been upheld by the Division Bench lf this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2023 dated 1O'1O'2r1 23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex r:ourt dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLP No.32847 ot 2024'

19. Mandir Tru v.state ofM harashtra and Ot! ers rePorted in AIB 20 os reme Cou rt 3969a ndi np 3 rticular Para D c rt in lari K rish n a Nos .100 and 01 held as follows: "100. The High Courts exercising their ju Arlicle 226 ol the Constitution of India, nc power to issue a writ of mandamus or lr t mandamus, G ver r ed to exercise orh as wror tu I u t a e u o a s consideration. c I I r r sdiction u nder t only have the r the nature of g xercise such 1 'rlic authoritv r.! tlv exercised ule, or ex rclsed c n irr lev nt

101. In all such cases, the High Court mu:;1 mandamus and give directions to compel an appropriate and lawful manner of conferred upon the Government or a publi( issue a writ of lerformance in the discretion :uthoritY. "

20. e Divisio Be h c its ludqment n dated 1O. o6.20 13 asse in W. A.No s.782 o i 2O1O and 854 20 u hol d :d o8.o9.2010 t 27 SN, J w_2597 5_2022 Dassed in W.P.No.24377 of 2oo7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 obse edasu der:- "Further. it is manifest from the material on record that the services of the similarly placed persons who approached the law Courts were regularized. The a ppella nt-Corporation also issued various office orders/circula rs dated 20.12.1989, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2OO9 for regularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25- T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for such a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of Section 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respondents are entitled to regularization as directed in the impugned orders, as the learned single Judge considered all the aspects of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals." 2L. The Division Bench of his Court in its Judoment t dated 1 9 .09. 20L7 Dassed in W.P.N .2 7 2 l7 of reDo rted in 2OtA( 2 ALD rtao e 282 at ara 1 6a nd oara 18 2oL7 o D observed as under:- "16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time a bsorption/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. 28 SN, J *p-2597 5 2022 r f various State The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious : orders such as enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executiv( r I directions in c.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.!994, while givi : e (suPra). But Para No.53 of the judgment in Urna Devi's cz t e States where still, it has not made any exception in favour of t I orption exist. State enactments banning reg u la rization/a t I o.2 12. dated Ms 1 94 Th 22.4. 1994. do not whitt edo wn thEV I dth and the L a), does not h , i.! sued bv the -n llma Devi's il,sible for the .o. .99 4 and g ularization to - satisfied the rmentinUma I rth e tra ectorv of the directions Court inPara 53 of its iudom ent th efore. not D rm (suDra ). It is r Su reme

2.4 G. u No ria I Dev i's ca (suo a).

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, r in OA No.1442 of 2OL4, on the file of the Trib n and he DO ndents to cons ider reoulari ation of w w la id own I Para No.53 the criteri Um Devi's case (suora) This orocess mu: in two mont s f rom the d teofr ecer this order." I fLed 27.6.2O17, r nal is set aside ! rection to the I he services of L rcies of Work tetr satisfv rno t ft I : iudoment in i be comoleted 1t of a copv of

22. The D ivision Benchof .O4.2O2O oassed ln I.A.Nos -1- ot 2Oi this Court in ts Ju dqment f2 9 I and W.P.No. 23057 of 2O 9 reDo rted in 202 t(4) ALD D oe :l 379 at Daras 45 ,48 a d Dara 50 o serv a!;_ under:- "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have reen working on ( 30) years of daily wage since 1d90 and have put in alm I ;t i".ui." O"V now. They have been given minimu I time-scale from ihe year'2000. They have been continuousll working without any tourt orders in their favour from 1990 till i tte' 4a. It is not k own fol wed the de isron g ndent has not a;e (supra), as hv the 1st n uma Devi 'sc D . r 29 SN, J w_2597 5 2022 exolained in M.L. Kesari's case (suora) and undertaken a e e w J w 1 wathou t the intervention of the Cou and Tribuna sason LO.4.2 O6 and subi them to a Drocess verificati nasto whether they are workino aoainst vacant oosts and possess reouisite qualifications for the oosts, and if so, reoularize their services.

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 74, 76 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the resDonden ts are directed to reqularize on one- ime basis oetitioners' services from the date each of the petitioners :ilv h tnitial da s of their anno tn mant- Btrt all not he entitled to anv mone arv relief. The said exercise hall be coDv of t e order. " rr=aaa ate t rce on w h r

23. This Cou rt ooines that in the oresent case, the eth ir dutv in examrnlnq resDon ents failed a ro the reouest of the r)etiti oner forr eou attzation of oetitio er's service ho is workin as full time sweeDe r and further to considerhi sr o uest to treatt he emoorarv s w f + e + a lral arr de ost i a I ne for A !t ntl r oses bv o slA,ee n r as red ul rantino !ast qrade oav with oeriod ca tn rement revt sed lrom time to time from the date of ADDO ntment accordan ce to !aw. he oetitioner, i n o t f 30 SN, J \\'p 259'15 2022

24. T Co o s ron o ner' a t r r n en itled for t the relief as n r Pe rese w n _ view of the rva ions of theA xC urt in varroL!, iudqments to and extrac da ve) and the- view of the en!; referred to the udq Division Be nch of this Court i (refe rred and extracted above.

25. Taki a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances (l' the case' b) The submissions made by the lear red counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and leal ned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the responder t Nos'4 & 5' c) The observations of the Apex Court ir the various judgments (referred to and extracted abo'/ l) and again enlisted below: i)(2o2o) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2025 rNSC 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scc247 (vii) (2013) 14SCC 65 (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC t797 (ix) (201s) 8 scc 26s f ( 3l SN, J \4p 25975 2022 (x) (2014) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (20o6) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 ol 2O1O and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dated O8.O9.2O10 passed in W.P.No.24377 ol 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated L9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.272t7 ol 2OL7 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated

21.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2OL9 (referred to and extracted above). S) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 ol the present order. The Writ Petit o n tsa llowed, the oetitioner is irected th the im of the etationer ) -1- SN, J wp 25915-2022 .! ;o the claim req ula rization of oetitioner ,s servl es, and a Detitioner in the last o rade Dost ll Du rDoses bvq antin reat t !ast orE r d m e s I Vices of the SweeD( r as reqular r: le oav with me from the :1 aDoot ntmen tof oetitiorlr tr al! co seouentia l docum en srns dulv enclo all the relevant Doort ofo itioner's casea out-forthin riod of<I re (O1) week f recei ptofc OD of the t) 'der and the consider -:he same in les of nat ral conformitv with orincl the oresent writ oetitio n,wr hin a from the date o ndents shall exam ne an accordan etol w, ln iusticebvDrovidinqanoDportunitvofoersolalhearinqto Dasse dbr the Su ore me f orde the oetitio er, rn erms o Court in Uma D vi's c se re orted in 2OO 6(,I I SCC Paoe 1, the iudoment oassed in W.P.No'24377 o! 2OO7 dated LD, Pa(I ,234 and as LL( 10 06.20 3. an d 1

08. 9 .2O1O re DO e o.782 of 2O1 O date confirmed in W.A.N ) A o n I Bench Judo ment of th also as Der Division 19.O9.2O17 oassed in W.P.No.27217 of 2O! 7 reported in lso the Er vision Bench and a Daoe 242 20L8(2)AL date d t" 33 SN, J wp_2591 5 _2022 s u da d21 4.2 20 a s r.A os.1 of 2 o20 edin2 o w hin a 1 t2 I P o.2 o57 of o1 ALD a e 79 wh h d ttai ed o4 w ks m he a t J d con der tio th ob rV the A e ra on an aw aid ow b xCourt tn the va rtou s iudqments referred to and tcu r ra No. 3 a d iudqment of Karnataka v. Uma Devi d cisi nt orderasto e tio r ts. the Aoex Coutt in the case of State of duly commu n icate the ow ver t! n I Miscellaneous petitions, Petition, shall stand closed. if any, pending in this .s L -l- -- Writ //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTICE SU (For Her Ladyships Kind Perusal) PALLI NANDA To,

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

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

3. The Dstrict Collector and Chairman of Selection Committee and Minimum Wagqs Cornmittee, R.R. District. Govt. of Tel4ngana, Hyderabad.

4. The Chief Executive Otficcr, Zitlla Praja Parishad, R.R )istrict. 5. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, I hamshabad Mandal, Rangareddy District, T.S.

6. 11 LR Copies 7. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Lavr Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

8. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Associaliorr, Library, High Court Buitdings, Hyderabad.

9. One CC to SRI CH.GANESH, Advocate [OPUC] '10.One CC to SRI C.KALYAN RAO, SC FOR TG ZPP, lvt P & GPPS [OPUC] 11.Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL t)l iV, High Courtforthe State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OU!

12.Two CCs to GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING, Higr Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

13.Two CD Copies BSR BS ry/ HIGH COURT DATED: 1810712025 CC TODAY \ \ ORDER WP.No.25975 of 2022 -ft-rE s t4 (,) ( t til: i1 P.{r r { ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS g $ \,