G. Balamani v. The State of Telangana

2011(1) ALD. Paqe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O- dated 10.06.2O13 and also order, dated 1 9.O9.20L7 passed tn W.P.No.272L7 of 2 17 reported in 2O18 (2) ALD Paoe 282 and also the order, dated 21.O4. O2O oassed in W.P.No.23O57 of 2019 reoorted in 2O2O(4) ALD Paqe 379. 5 Lea rned standinq counse! aDpearinq on behalf of the resDondent N o.4 submits that the qri evance of the 6 SN, J '.tp_25931 2022 Detitioner as Dut-forth in the D sen Writ Pe1-j tion had not ed to n rein a on date a nd L the refore, the Detition er can not com Dlaa tn a ction on the Dart of resoond ents herein in con sideri nq the r t s ;_ orievance of dforb v the E r s etit ner and no Ma ndamu s can be issu edaoainst thl1 resoondents ter mav be for and the petitit so uq ht hereund er as ) can o :be oranted cted to out-forth the oetiti oner's o rte, ! tnce as out- forth tn the p resent Writ Petitlo bv av >f a detai! ed tion to the resoond nts h reln andu on reor esenta rec iot of he said reDrese ntation the resD(l rdents would accorda nce to la ar, within a he sa eln con ider t reasonable oeriod.

6. Learned counsel a ooearin o on behalf ol- :he oetitioner e de vthel ear ned th e said s hm ss to n ot disout d I ta ndin o couns Ia ear DD s n beha fof t I e respondent No.4 e 7 SN, J wp 25937 2022 7, The Aoex Co rt in the iudqment reoo in (202O) 1 scc (L&s) n Prem Sinqh v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, at para 36 held as under: "36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30- 40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision. has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them riqht from the dav thev entered the work-charoed establishment shall be counted as ou?lifving service for puroose of oension."

8. The Aoex Court in the ca of Dharwad District PWD e n eEm lo ees Association V Sta Karnataka reoorted in 199O(2) SCC Paqe 396 laid orinciple that the State should not keeo a oerson in temoorary or r 8 a dhoc servrce for on o DEriod andh v DE rsonsas qu lar n SN' J \!p 2j9i7,2022 to - treat such Par.a 9 nt e 1 4 o .53 f h t t n t o hereunder: - of thel ud q ment of tht ) ADex Court k n n h r o 6 4 s Umi devi, dated 1 .! e racted s i { ( s e t Ic e t , I r ( r v t u rere mav be ( not illeoal ,lara vana DOa 1 72 1 scc 50 71 4 ulv G alified r mioht have continued to without the of tribunalg. 'vi e on merits -in Co s ti h e n ia trumentalities ao e-time ind u lv f orde rs of the e e s r to fill those co be filled uo, rr dailv waoef s must be set ln te..... o t t t 9 SN, J w 2591'l:2022

10. The iudoment of the Aoex Court dated 20.12.2024, reDorted in 2O24 Lawsuit(SC) 1209 in Jaqoo Anita and v nd others and the r v n oaraqraoh Nos.12. 13, 24, 26, 27 and 28 are extracted hereund er: "12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workersr" the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.

13. The claim bv the resoondents that these were not reoular Dosts lacks merit. as the nature of the work performed bv the aDDellants was perenn ial and fundamental to the functionino of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were Iabelled. 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. l0 SN. J rvp 259 ]7 2022

24. The landmark judgment of the Unitec ;tate in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporati') I [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pe-inent example from the private sector, illustratirt I the consequences of misclassifying employe€ s to circumvent providing benefits' In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as indep: tdent contractors, thereby denying them en'g loyee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for th€: Ninth Circuit determined that these workers w(l e, in Fact, common-law employees and were ent t ed to the same benefits as regular employees' Tht: Court noted that large Corporations have incree;ingly adopted the practice of hiring tennorary emPloYees or independent contractors as a I 1ea ns of avoid ing payment of emPloYee benefits, t t ereby increasing their profits' This judgment u nde r;cores the principle that the nature of the wo rk .o the erformed, rather than the label assigne d p :r s and worker, should determine emPloYment stal t;. It rresponding rights and benefi the co hiq hliohts the udiciarv's r le in rec ! ifvino such m lassi icatio s and ensu rrn workers recei v fair t atm nt. 26, While the judgment in Uma Devi (;upra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor rntries and ensure appointments adhered to constit ltional principles, it is regrettable that its princit) 3s are often' misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employea;' This juigment aimed to distinguish between 'illegal" -and appoir t nents' It cateooricallv held that em lov ces ln g qed in n ln me san ioned Dosts and had _;erved co tinuo slv fo more than ten vea rs _;hould ou tlzation as be consid ered for re .! L one- However, the laudable ir:ent of tim meas tutions the judgment is being subverted when inst rct the rely on its dicta to indiscrim inately rei' e th eir claims of employees, even in cases wht:' "irregular" w we ure. -d -.=.- 6 t1 SN, J vp_25931 2022 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 appropna te. This selective aoplication distorts the iudoment's' sDirit a nd puroose, effectivelv weaoonizinq it aoainst emolovees who have rendered indisoens ble services over dec des.

27. In light oF these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines eniployee 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 positirie precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.

28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated

27.10.2018 are quashed; I / 12 wp 25931 SN, J -2022 lt. hea ell fo wit u reoulari sed ss ilb o serv ices How ever.thea DD lla nts shall r e but v led to continuitv of se ! be enti th e unt dfo rth lr k h v not the said oeriod and uld be f s ! aken _ their 1 rvith. 1rt be J ;ame oost- 7

11. heJ e dat ( 3 L.2 25 d o n2O r NAGAR NIGAM , GHAZIA INS 1 n RI LA I) AN OTHER v. BAD,,, in oarticular, the relevant oara Nos.1 5to1 9 are e tract und er: c n A Eve s if ce '15. nuou slv re t nd re il,l rt Workmen dth eir se rvices over sev ral t deca de. rr du edinfull, roll wer ch records- I an adverse la bou r qlv disfavo rs Iaqem ent a nent r w! -al o wel I-esta blist DE Detua I dail v-wa eor contractual et w r d inference u nder .In Em t f b o n r I I r u I n w dis as work ! s who fulfil fter vear ;_ disoensable, the abse nce of a qenuj le contractor n ea r u ure Mo c Da rticu Iarlvl 7, l3 SN, J \vp 25931 2022 aoreement.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 laggo v. Union of India in the following pa rag ra phs: "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 responsibllity 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: . Misuse of "TemDorarv" Labels: Emolovees enoaqed for work that is essentia!, recurrino, and inteqra! to the functioninq of ao institution are often labelled as "temporarvl "contractual." even when lheir rolss mirror I t4 SN, J *p ,1593'1 -2022 r f "f d s r r ve m lo (: orkr: ts I !s. Such 's of the lat reoular performino ifi at nd curiw a nd ben e is la dionitv, s m lo esa identical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary rl nployees are freqrentf V'Oismissed without cause or ^ ltice' as seen in the present case' lhis practice urlermjnes the natural justice and subject ; workers to a pri".efJi state of constant insecurity, regardles; of the quality "O*uti"a of their service' ' L't:k of Career Prooression: Temporary employees ofte-n find "t -riom opportu- ties ror skill il:ffit,;; "r.irJ!a l"""llpr".t, promotions, or incremer ;al pay raises' - r".ain stagnant in their rol€ ;' creating a ih"u ;;;uliti olt*""n them art their resular J;,:.; :5r;i;;;.;i;:- dtspite their contrir 'utions beins equallY sig nifica nt. . Using Outsourcing as a Shie r : Institutions increisiigty resort to outsourcing rolr: ; performed by t"rnpo..V employees, eifectiveiy ret lacing o.ne set "i""!"i.it"O workers with another' l.l is practice not exptoitation but al1;' ' demonstrates effort to bvpass the otrl gation to offer "l'r^il,tiititei ""ilriu"iut" regular emPloYment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Bent: its: Temporary are often- denied fundii nental benefits irin u. pension, provident fund' tl alth insurance' "rn"p-foy"". inO paid leave, even when the I tenure spans i"lu.i"=.-ft,is lack of social securil) subjects-them and their families to undue hardsh p' especially in cases of illness, retirement' f,r unforeseen circu msta nces. " The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's 16. inability to justify these abrupt terminatioi';' Consequently' it ordered re-engagement on daily r i ges with some l5 SN, ] wp _25911 _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 reco rd. 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 they wete enqaqed in essential, perennia! duties, these workers cannot be releqated to DerDetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budqet and comoliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Emolover of statutorv oblioations Indeed bureaucratic limitations cannot trumD the leqitimate riqhts of workmen who have served continuouslv in de faeto reqular roles for an extended petiod. n

18. The imDuqned order of the Hioh Court. to the extent they eoofine the ADeellant Workmen to future daily-talase enqaqement without continuitv or l6 SN, J n9 25931 ,2022 meaninoful back waqes, is herebv set asl le with the fol lowin q direction s: I. The discontinuation of the Appellarr' Workmen's rlrui.Ls, effected without compliance wi1 h Section 6E uni i".tion 6N of the U.P' Industrial lrisputes Act' is declared illegal' All orders or tsil , iommunications terminating their s ervices are quashed. In consequence, the Appella rt Workmen inutt O" treated as continuing in serr ce from the Oui" of their termination, for all purpc: es' including seniority and continuity in service' II. The ResPondent EmPloyer shall Appellant Workmen in their respecti' posts akin to the duties they previou!; within four weeks from the date of tt ce (frotr Therr e tire Derrodof bse te mrn ton nti! cou nted for continuitv co nseo enti !i lbe nefi m to sucha s if n lr ns ser! r einstate the 'e posts (or l performed) is judgment. the date of :rlt e :e and all !nioritv and III. Considering the length of service the Appellant Wor[."n shall be entitled to 507o of tt e back wages from the date of their discontinuati rn until their uJrur i"ln.tatement. The Respondent :mployer shall ifla. tf,e aforesaid dues within thre{l months from the date of their reinstatement' I T R t af ula zin n m h t t ns d o re mo hs conside rinq the fact that thev harr Dere nnia I mun tcioal duti t j as essl no DOsts, E ak n reo lar In r r s r A w r r n r er g directed to DT cess for rn with ln six :ement, dulv 'e performed ) Derma nent zation, the e,l ucational or ifs uch v av': 2 ied to the situated mil rrl Y t7 SN, J wp 25937 _2022 e st. To he that sanctio ned vacancies for such duties exist or are reoui red, the ResDondent E olover shal! exoedite all necessarv administrative Drocesses ure these lon ees are n indefi nitelv retained on dailv waoes contra rv to statutorv and equitable 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 iudo ent reported in (2O17) 1 Suoreme Court Cases 148. i State of Puniab and others vs Jaqiit Sinoh and others at Paras 54 and its sub-oaras (1)(2)(3). of the said iud ment observed as under: "54 "The Full Bench of the High Coutt, 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 Couft in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder: - "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. 2 appointees are not aDpointed aoainst reoular sanctioned Dosts and their services are availed it wa or con I 18 SN, ] wp-25937 2022 o rea s strumenta lities _ by the State !tr a sufficient Governm ent or its in lonq oeriod i.e. for 7O vears, such d lv wao ers. ad hoc or contractual a ooointees shall -be entitled to minimum of t.'he reoular oav scale without anv n the essumDtion t tat work of a llo wances perennial nature is availahle and hav..l no wor, ed for such lono oeriod of time. an eol L tab ,s dinsu cateqorv of Derso ns,-rheir claim for c reoula rization. if nv. mav h ve to -be considered seoaratelv in terms of leqallv permrs. ble eme. (3) In the event, a claim is made for m't imum pay scale after more than three years and t uo months of comptetion of 10 years of continuous t rcrking, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractuat employee st zll be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and tv/" months."

13. The udqment of the ADex Cou rt reoo r t :d in 2O1O(9) scc 247 betw en: State of Karnataka M.L.Kesari and others, in oarticular, Daras z to9re ads as oth r V t ( u nder: V. Umat C L. I 'vi was rendered 4. The decision in State of Karnataka In that case, a on 10.4.200 6 (reoorted in 2006 H SC Constitution Bench of this Court held that a{ t ointments made without foltowing the due process or the trles relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regu lrization or re- engagement nor make their service permanc 't, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Att cle 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarilY issue directio 's for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unles; the recruitment had been done in a regular manneL 't terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts r. Jst be careful in ensuring that theY do not interfere unduly tv th the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its nstru mentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facil,t te the bypassinq of the constitutional and statutory mandates. 'his Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casuat or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be nade permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the -' levant rules or in 19 SN, J tNpJ5937 2022 adherence of Atticles 74 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however nade one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : 7 7 scR 72 '53 One a soect needs tobec arified- Th ma vbe irreoular aooointmen ts (not illeoal cases whe aoDointme nts) as exolained i.n S.V. Naravanaooa 72 7 scc 409 I and B.N. Naoaraian t 7979 H) scc 5071 end refe rred to in oara 75 above. of dulv qualified tlw <ancl-irtned trz?,rr; been made nd the emolovees have continued to work for ten vears or more but wit, out the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The auestio of reoularization of th seruices of Nan n ht ha ,rrac es ma conside me rits in the lidht of the DrinciDles settle bv this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the lioht of this iudo ment, In that context- e Union of the Stafe Governments and their India, ,nstrumenta ties should take steDs to reoularize as a one-time measure. the services of su 'h irreoularlv inted wha hava d for ten in dulv san ned Dosts but not under cover of e courts or of tribunals and should orders of further ensure that reoular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned Dosts temporarv emoloyees or daily waoers are beins t in motion now emolo d. The Drocess must be within six months from this date. .... uire to "5. It is evident from the above that therc is an exception to the general principles against ' regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 70 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the ihterim 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) fhe appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or f 20 SN, J wp_25937 ]072 : the persons t qualifications, But where the alifications and been selected titive selection, continued against sanctioned posts or wher appointed do not possess the prescribed minimt't the appointments will be considered to be illegt't person employed possessed the prescribed qt was working against sanctioned posts, but hz( without undergoing the process of open comFc such appointments are considered to be irregul' t tle conce (iii) ! (e steps to t, Go ul rlv ao reou rize the senf l. an ten vears ! >rim orders of without the cou rts or tribun ls. as a one-time mea:; lre. Umade vI. n 1 st be set in directed that such on e-time measu moti''on withi,nsxm onths dec ron Uma evi lovees whohads erved for more t n of a vln uDo instrumentalitv. to of t.hose ir, the ate tf i nefit or Drote nd' .200 6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be t proper perspective. This would normally mee r decision in umadevi, each department or eac\ should undertake a one-time exercise and prel casual, daity-wage or ad hoc employees who ha for more than ten years without the intervent ( tribunals and subject them to a process v( whether theY are working against vacant posts requisite qualification for the post and if so, services, tderstood 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

7. At the end of six months from the datc umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad -hoc/: were still pending before Courts. Consec, departments and instrumentalities did not cotr' time regularization process. On the othe Government departments or instru menta lities one-time exercise excluding several e t consideration either on the ground that their ces in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such c l employees who were entitled to be considerec 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose , considered for regularization, merely becaus exercise was completed without considering because the six month period mentioned in par has expired. The one-time exercise should ct wage/adhoc/those employees who had put of decision in rsual employees )ently, several nence the one- ' hand, some undertook the tployees from ?s were pending :umstances, the n terms of Pa ra heir right to be ) the one-time their cases, or t 53 of Umadevi nsider all dailY- n 10 years of @r' t 2t SN, J wp_25937 2022 continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered.

8. The obiect behind the said direction n Dara 53 of fold. First is to ensure at those who Umadevi is n tinuous to ensure lono service- Second without the Drotection of an v interim orders of courts or re the date of decision in Umadevi was tribunals. b rendered- are considered for reoulariza n in view of deoartmenE/ instrumentalities do not D erDetuate the Dractice of emolovino Dersons on dailv-waoe/ad- hoc/casual for lono De ds and then oeriodicallv reaularize them on the oround that thev have served for m ore than ten vears. therebv defeatino the constitutiona I or statutorv Drovisions relatins to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of ihe direction is that all r more than ten vears as on Dersons who have worked 70.4.2006 (the date of ion in Umadevi) without the ptotection of anv interim order of anv court or tribunal. in wacant Dasts iraq<a<<,n.a tha ta.rrri<ila artalifiaatian entitled to be considered for reoularization. The fact that the emoloyer has not undertaken such exercise of za ion within six Umadevi or that such exe ise was undertaken onlv in m I will n employees, the risht to be considered for reqularization n measure. rms of the above directions in u a

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 SN, J 2022 'tp._25937 taw. The onty further direction that needs be gi en' in view of iiiaae'ri, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gada' should now iniertaie an exercise within six months, a ger eral one- time retgrularization exercise, to find out whether the" are any daily iiiJrisruttud-hoc emptoyees serving the Zila c lnchayat and if ;rrh emptoyeies (including the re:t ondents) futfill ;;';h"t;;' li"'i"iiiir"*unts mentioned in para 53 of l.tmaoe ti'. If they fulfill inli,'tn"i, services have to be regularized' lf '; rch an exercise -ni itreaay been undertaken by ignoring or or1 tting the cases oi ,"rponi"rtt 7 to 3 because of the pendencs' )f these cases' in"i fnui, cases shall have to be considered itt continuation of Lhi saia one time exercise within three months' t is needless to tu1-tii if the respondents do not fulfill the tequirements of paira SS of Umadevi, their services need not t't regularised' If tie emptoyees who have completed ten year; service do not ioltit{ tn'" educational qualifications prescribel for the post' at \ii ti*" of their appointment, theY may b'.- considered for -riiuLliution in suitable lower posts' This app': tl is disposed of accordinglY. n c A L4. u me e of Pun Nihal Si oh ti r n j:o13) 14 scc Ot the Supreme Court considered the t"5g I rf absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the: State' whose wages were paid by Banks at whose < isposal their services were made available. It held that :he mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did rut render the appellants 'employees' of those Banl<; since the appointment was made by the State arJ disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that tlr r creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cad r : is a matter .LIi_4i-4r7/// -,, (' -,/ 23 SN, J \vp.25937 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 contractuat relationship, its action is arbitrary .It also refused to acceDt the defence that there were no sanctioned oosts a nd czr ere l rac rus fiart trln for fha S+. tn rrt I ica t servace s of larqe num ber of oeoDle !i ke the aoDell nts for decades. It held that " sa nctioned osts do not f l! from heaven" and that t e State has o create thembva conscro us choice on t e basis of so e rational assessment of need. eferrino to Umadevi, it held that the before t em were not arbitrarilv chosen. ooella nts their initial aooointment was not an lrreqular' aooointmen as it had been ma e in accordance with the statutorv Droced ure eAc tha Dalia e6 1 e Sta rt lr6 l^ r 1 t cannot b r heard to sav that thev are not entitled to be s te n r basis as, acco dinq to it, their aDoointmen ts were ourelv temoora and not aoainst nv sanctioned oo created bv the State. ft was held that the iudqment in Umadevi cannot becom a licence for exoloitation bv the State and I 24 in ru nta ies nd nei er SN, J \tp-25917 _2022 '/ ]rnment of n nor ho u rB nks n rr:inu e such a pr cti accorda cew th th Con titution. ent wit h their obliqation t ction tn c

15. T e t A s L79 n .Srinivas c't ted in2 15 ;rnd othersv Nellore Munici oal reD rrc An Coroor atio Reo,bv its (lt,mmissi o n er, a rticu la r L P 8r s ara 7a (7) g ado?ted bv the 'uLon Ciii. The right of the aooeltants to sgc.tere-,9llanzalea niGj-itn"-c.o. uo.itz drt"d 22..q.t991 T-he aopellant ffi;st respondent no: tnlv orior to the is=G;;-of the said G.o. but even subsequer\ to the issue of G.O. tlll toda" The respondent Municipality o ting a statutory by the G.O. 212(supra)' Inqt':e. of the above ;"dy1t ieitionea d.o. tne respondents kept quite fo'elmost 20 years iiniut regularising the service of the appellait s and continued to extract work from the appellants. "bl;g"d In the circumstances, refusing the ber'rfit of the above 8. ientioned G.O. on the ground thaa the appet' lnts approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is no: iustified' In the iiicumstances, the appeat is attowed modifyinq the order under iipiuit iv directing inut tne appeltants' se.rvi.o s .be regularised from 1he date of their completirrr their five year *in continuous service as was laid down by thi:; Court in District Coiiei'ctor/cnairperson & others vs' M'L' sinqn & ors' 2009 (8) SCC 4BO. "ffirt In Amark ant Rai v State of Bi har rep rte (2015 16. scc 265. the SuDreme Court held that The objective ( )8 I 25 behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit SN, J \\P 2s93'] _2022 regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure securitv of em D ovmento fth ose DE so s lrv oha d se ed th r e State n h Governm nt and their instru entalities for mo re than ten e as workin r2f This decision aoproves earlier view exoressed in M.L.Kesari extracted above. t7. In State of Jarkhand v mal Prasad reoorted in (2OL4\ 7 SCC 223. simila r view was taken bv the Suoreme Court and it was held as follows : "47.... In view of the ca rical findino of fact on the relevant contentious issue that the resDondent emolovees have contin e continuouslv therefore, the leoal principle laid down by this Court in Umadevi case te of Karnataka v Umadevi (2OO6) 4 SCC 7 : 2OO6 SCC (L&S) 73) at odra 53 squarelv aanliac Hioh Court has riohtlv held that the resoondent entnlowees are en?illed for the raliaf thc cat',p tannni ha intertered wiLh bu this Court." --ca s. The Divrs, n Raa;h al r more tha j^ ?t 6 6?aea^| 70

18. The Judgment of this Court dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.276O2 ot 2O19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha r 26 SN, J \vp .159i'l ,2022 Swamy Temple, Yadadri' Nalgonda Disl:r ict' which had been upheld by the Division Bench c'l this Court and also in W.A.No.9 37 of 2(123 dated 1O'1O'2O:I ' confirmed bY the order of APex 09.08.2024 in SLP No'32847 ot 2024' (ir rurt dated The iudqm ent oft he A 19. M andir Tr st V. State of M hara h a IR2 2 s f m t x Court in l-a n h a and ott :r ! r DOrt d zrr ticular Dara o t o1 held w o n "100. The Hig h Courts exercising their j uri ,diction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no1 cnlY have the the nature of power to issue a writ of mandamus or lr ta re dutv-bo un d to( J lercise such mandamus, ilic authoriw w r n g ly exercised r r t C n o - ias exercised o ail dto t on co ferre u o io o n bv a r h re h h d sc t v rn ru e le a t t e 1 l u d c nsrder tion.

101. In all such cases, the High Court mu:;l issue ? YII:j ,*a.*".-.nJ give directioris to compel lerformance tn -una lu*iul manner of th.9 discretion ;ri'#;;i" conferred upon the coveinment or a publi(: authority"'

20. heD vl o 1 1 o 2 12 wh le n h t w A o 7 2 t h lud qm ent L r20 10 and 854 ! ed O8.O9.2O1O a 27 SN, J wp 25931 2022 Dass tn W.P.N .24377 ol 2007 and C.C.No.48 of 2008 obse ved as u nder:- "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 n t-Corporation also issued various office orders/circulars dated 20.12.1989, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for regularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25- T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for such a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but unfair labour.practice attracting the provasions 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.,,

21. The Division Benc of this Co rt in its Ju qment dated 19.o9.2017 Dassed in W.P.No.27 2t7 of 2017 reDorte d in 2O18(2)A LD oaqe 282 at Dara 16 and ra 18 observed s under:- "16. It is trite that the law declared by the S0preme 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 L994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regulaflzation and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time a bsorption/reg u la 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 \,'tp _2591'1 2021 The Supreme Court is presumed to be consclous ( f various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executiv(: :rders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, whlle givil , directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in uma Devi's cas ? (supra)' But still. it has not made any exception in favour of tl-: States where State enactments banning reg ula rization/a t ! crption exist' Therefore, Act 2 ot 1994 I oo and G.O . Ms. 1o.212, dated :j rth and the 22.4.1 994. do not whittle down the rt a), does not n the traiectorv of the dire ions is sued bv the Suo me Court n Para 53 of its iudo ment -n Uma Devi's case ( u ora). rt is. therefore, not Dermi sible for the resDon ents to take helter under ct 2 of: 994 and G.o. rlarization to .2 1 ) Mc N itioners. who have, ad m ittedlv, _ satisfied the the D aid down in Pa ra No.53 of the iutl rment in Uma criteria I Devi 's case (su ora). .l^l.oA 22.a too 4 tar laB r I .t a

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, cli ted 27.6.2017, ra I is set aside in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the TribJ iection to the and the writ oetition is allowed with the resDon dents to consider reoularisa tion of t re services of cies of work the petitioners aoainst the existino vaca! rs and aooo int them subi ect to tl reir satisfvino Insoe the cri eria laid dow in Para No. 3oft : iudo ent in Uma Deyi's case (suora). This orocess mus,! be comDleted within two months from the date of recei E! of a copv of this o er. n

22. The Division Bench of this Court in j ts Judoment dated 21.O4.2O2O oassed in I.A.Nos.1 ot 2O2 inlo f 2019 I and w.P.N .23057 ot 20 1 9 reoo ed in 2O2( (4)ALD oaoe 379 at oaras 45.48 and Dara 5O observed as _ rnder:- "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have leen working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in alm(,r t (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimurl time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously ^/orking without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till c i te.

48. It is not know n r rhv the 1st resD(l rdent has not followed the decision in Uma Devi's czr: e (suora), as 29 SN, J etp ,25937 -2022 dw rk exDlai ned in M.L, Kesari's case (suora) and unde ken a one-ti e exercise o Dreoarino the list of dail waqe m lo withou t the intervent ion of the Cou rts and Tribuna ls as on LO.4.2 O6 and subiect them to a Drocess verificati nasto thev are workino aoainst vacant Dosts and whether oossess reouisite oualifications for the posts. and if so, reoularize their servrces. th n o

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 vlo[ative of Articles 74, 16 and 2L of the Constitution of India; the resoonde ts are directed to reqularize on one- ime basis oetitioners' services from the date each of the petitioners ond it their aooo tntment- But- th vs h a I n.|t he nitial dates .t entitled t anv monetarv relief. The said exercise shall be done within two (2) weeks from the date of receiDt of coDv of t e order." 1O rrearc af carrri w m

23. This Co rt ooines that n the Dresent se, the resoondents f iled to discharoe their dutv ln examtnlno the reouest of the oetit oner for reoularization of petitioner's services, who is workinq as full time sweeDer d further to consi r re ues r m rar ce of the rtetitioner in t h zrFade ost of f il lI fi]rra sweeDer as reoular one for l! ourposes bv orantino last orade Dav wrth perlodical increment revis from time to time from the date of appointment of th Detitioner, in accordance to law. I / 1 30

24. This Court oDl SN, J wp-25931-2022 n it d or t hat D iti oner lli for tn I s o e s a t the Dre ent Writ Petition n oa de t h eA e t e b v NV o o e r a e c r n ! f the relief as lr view of the udqm ents ri(, ls t m lr rts referred to f e e b erv e err Divi o a r a ove

25. T toc n id r ti n a) counsel The aforesaid facts and circumstance!; of the case' The submissions made by the l': 'r[€d b) appearing on behalf of the petitioner and le arned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the responrJ ant Nos'4 & 5' in the various of the APex Court and extracted al: rve) and again c) The observations judgments (referred to enlisted'below: i't(2020) 1 scc (L&s) iii\lsgdrzl scc Pase 3e5 iriir 2025 rNsc 144 ii;i 2o24 Lawsuit(sc) 12oe i"f tzorz) l scc 148 'zoro(g) scc 247 i,iir rzot3) 14scc 65 i"iiir 'zors -scc onlittt sc L797 tir)'(zors) 8 scc 26s lw.ra-:'-r/ /a "' 3l SN, J wp 25937 :2022 (x) (2oL4) 7 SCC 223 (xa) SLP No.32847 ol2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2oo6) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2O18(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 ot 2O1O and 854 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment dated O8.O9.2O1O passed in W.P.No.24377 ol 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated L9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.272l7 ot ZOLT (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 ot 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 of zOLg (referred to and extracted above). g) 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 Deti t h tioner is ( )L t- SN, J wp-2593'7 -2022 it ne s rvl s ;o the claim I t he m ra sel ,rices of the f enI Sweeoer as rantinq la .. t qrade Pav s bv he et ion of ion rt t r ular one for all DUrDO r de f e r w h n thed te of m nts rev d ro lo tim from oDoantment of the oetitic)l ter n u nti b nef ll :here levant documents in supoort of petitioner's case a! out-forth in flo of(t re (01) week w hin voft he o'dera nd the :he same ln from the date of recel ot of t r c nsr IN a e u w in co for I ith rl b rov IN r nt ms no o of er a d es of natur a! l ! al hearinq to eS Dre e thI tn ma vi' rte ln 5 I t SCC Paoe 1, e P 2 77 2Io oo7 d a d t m o8 09.2 10 Dort din 2011 w .No. 2o 20 r avrs nB nch d (1) ALD, Par nd as 34 t o 06.20 L3.a d h !; Court dated [ 7 rePorted in d d f l2 9 2 L7 in W.P. .27 L7 2018 2 LDD ade 2a2 a d a o the Er vi ion Ben ch ,t SN, J \|P_2s937 ]022 ment of this d 2t. 4.2 2 I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of2o 19 in W.P.No.23O57 of 2019 reoorted in 2O2O(4)ALD Daqe 379 which had attained fi nalitv. within a oeriod of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order- dulv takinq into consideration the observations and the law laid down bv the Apex Court in the various iudqments (referred to and extracted above), and in oarticular, para No.53 of the iudqment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi decision to the petitioner. However, there shall be no and dulv communicate the order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. - //TRUE COPY// sD/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY TANT REGIST A ECTION OFFICER One fair copy to the HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SURE (For His LordshiP's Kind Perusal) ALLI NANDA To 1. 2. .) 4 11 L.R. CoPies. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia' Ministry of Law' Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. ?#"#;;;iil, i"iuns,n" Advocates Association Library' High court Buildings, HYderabad The Principal Secretary. Panchayathraj and Rural Employment Department' +;8il;ff s";i"t*itl r"t,ngan'a state' Hvderabad'

5. The Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Departr ent, Secretariat, Telangana State, HYderabad.

6. The District Collector, (Panchayat) and Chairman Min1l 9q Wqge-s. . . . Commiftee and Distribi Selecti6n Committee, lVledchal | 4alkajgiri District. 7 . fhe Zilla Praja Parishad, Medchal lrilalkajgiri District, F r p. by its Chief Executive Officer.

8. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Ghatkesar /andal, Itledchal Malkajgiri District.

9. One CC to SRI CH.GANESH, Advocate. [OPUC] 10.Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-|, High Courtforthe { tate of Telangana. louTI

11.One CC to SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR GPPS OPUCI

12.Two CD Copies BSK GJP HIGH COURT DATED:2410712025 \ \ CC TODAY \ HE SI4 1 ( ( ct) \r,74, -\). 12ll _ ..:_ -...- ' - )'i *. ,/|,, ORDER WP.No.25937 of 2022 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS