Percent compensation as per principl) the case of Union of tndia v. Avtar Chand in C.A.No

Order

Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-Il, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 & 5.

2. The as under: roner aDD roached the Court seeki no oraver "...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 37 long years on full time even not paying legitimate wages of Full Time Sweeper as per appointment dated Ol/10/7984 as unjust unfair totally arbitrary and violation of Article t4, 16, 21, 39( d), 43 and 300 A of our Constitution in denying legitimate living wages to petitioner by not implementlng Section 13 & 15 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and provisions of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and Govt Orders from time to time to pay living wages to petitioner and prays to direct it f' I t I 4 SN. J of 2021 dated the Honourable the Respondents herein to treat the servicer of the petitioner as regular one in last grade post from t t: date of initial appointment of 01/10/1984 by applr rrg the decision and principle laid by the Honourable Ape r Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs State of U'P' ( l )19 (r) lcurt in SCC 516 and Division Bench of this Honourable and Batch Casr: dated WP. No' 33936 of 2011 379 TS (DB) fol c ''red bY 02.05.2018 (2020 (4) ALD //.A.No. decision of the Honourable High Court of A' P ir O5/OB/2021 based on prirr 1>le laid 483 Supreme Court in C'A' No 1254 of 20 18 Apex Court dated 23/03/2OlB to reckon (c rtingent services of petitioner for computation of c ralifYing service to grant of pension gratuity and other te benefits by releasing consequential monetary lr the last grade post including periodical incrr t revised from time to time with 100Yo compe l per principle laid by Apex Court in the case c f India Vs Avtar Chand in C'A'No' 3416-3445 ot Batch cases dated tg/o2/2019 (ALD 3 of 201 by applyinq the aforesaid principles and decis ( rrs Benc - :s Apex Court and Division Honourable Honb ( Court in of our Constitution bY this 1010 and I SC 32) of the :rtefits in rents as lJnion of ;,rtion as t rement Article 141 the case of petitioner and pass'"" r r n e o el a e rt n la tn e n he v r n f of adel nt e ItEflWg!ilItr d3 -- 7 5 SN, J affidavat filed in suDDort of the Dresent writ Detition ertainin r he servic r Detitaoner with the resDondents herein for more than a decade conte nds that the oetitioner is entitled for the relief as ora ved for in the oresent writ oetition. PERUSED T E RECORD:- DISCUSSION A D CONCLUSION:- Lea rned

4. petitioner submits that the subiect issue in the oresent n behalf of DD e rrnd o cou nsel a case rs sq uarelv covered bv the order of this Court date d O8.O9.2O1O oassed in W.P.No.24377 ot 20O7 reoorted in

2011(1) ALD, Paqe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 201O. dated 10.06.2013 and also order. dated 19.09.20 L7 passed in W. P.No.272 L7 ol 2OL7 teoorted in 2O18 2 ALD ) Paoe 282 and also the order, dated 21.O 4.2O2O oassed in W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 reoorted in 2O2O(4) ALD Paqe 379. ( Lea t ad cta ndin L s I t rtrta^ rln at on behal f nf fha resoonden t No.4 submits that the qrievanc e of the ut-f r ent Writ Petitao had n been addressed to the resD dents herein as on date and ( 1 l 6 SN, J DOn nts h rern ! fore, he petition annot complain in action on the co nsid eri nq thr I grrievance of Da rt ofr th oeti tioner a nd hence. the relief as pra g ! for bv the be qra nted the Drese nt Wit Detition cann( petitioner ln and noM anda mus ca nbei ssued a ainst th, I !'esoondents for a nd he eund er as sou oht ED itio t rma ) cted toD t-fo forth in the Dresen Writ Peti ion b h the oetitioner's qrie' t_ l_nce as put- v,rf a t receiot oft he sa id reoresen 1- and uPon tatlon, he reSD(,1 ents wou! d the same in acc o rda nce to li 1 -t,, within a co nsider reasona ble Derl d. Lea rned couns el aD ea rtno on behalf of _ fe oetitioner th e lear ed aid submission made t s 6 d sta ndinq counsel aoo earinq on behalf ft _1 3 resoondent No.4 7 The A Dex Court in the iudoment re ort g!, in (2O20) 1 in Prem Sin qhvS ta of Utta r Pra desh scc ( L&s) rs, at Dara 36 held as under: "36. There are some of the employees who h I /{l not been regularized in spite of having rendered the se 1 i'res for 30- W 7 SN, J 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 shou.ld 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 re g u larly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired the reqular establishm ent and the servlces ren dered bv them rioht from thedavt ev ent red oua Iifvino servtce for D[rrDose of Dens on." h r d

8. The A ex Cou rt tn t e case of Dharwad District PWD Li w eEm lo ation s.s e ate D As t K I o t in1 90 2 ccP e3 aid r uld otk a tem a oc servrce for lonq oeriod an d have to t reat s uch Derso ns as reoula r one. Par No. f the I m n ftheA xCo the ta f Karn and o ers v . Umad v da d 8 SN, J

10.04.2OO6 reported in (2O06\ 4 SCC 1 ig - extracted hereu nder: - w r r 6 c40 R12 nd B.N N r ferred to in an to ed va nt os t d e rs r r e s o n m r r-I .T e ! a r n 50 re mav be rot illeqal I ra anap DA ! I _11972 (L) .N. Na un a l I 1 79 ara 15a ve ofd v ouali fied t ! ni ht have i I : rnti nued to ! rib nal s, l ices of such ! 4r merits in (jourt in the ht of thi f India, the me ntalit ies ) 3r one-time a aopointed, L V I ( t L' .,! r_ n ! ! h eas re, the se lce of such rrreou lat m f o o ver ol s ncti f ken () lrders of the but not nd r onedoo ensu re that s ou n o n rul me ca nts a nctron ed oosts that requ ire t, r be fil du D, so' dailvwa rs m es tr yst be set in d. The o hs ro w r tn no nw hi thi da re in e v e a u ; h th A xC u u m nt 10. re orted in2024 LawSuit (s o Indi t oaraqraph Nos.12, 13' 24' 26' 27 and 28 c) L209 ln Jat ll ot ers a v U ro n r d_

20.L2.2024, Anita and l:he rele vant extracted 'U'e he und er: \ . '-7' ,// -, 9 SN, J "12. Despite being labelled as "part-tame workers," 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 typicatly 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. The claim bv the resoondents that 13. these were not reqular Dosts Iacks merit, as the nature of the w rk oerformed bv the aooellants was Derennial and fundamental to the functioninq of the offices. The recurrin s 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 .- YI .t SN, J l0 (lou rt the same benefits as regular employees. Thr: noted that large Corporations have increl ; ngly adopted the practice of hiring ten 1 ora ry employees or independent contractors as a r 'I ea ns of avoiding payment of employee benefits, tf -" reby increasing their profits. This judgment unde - (:ores the principle that the nature of the o the performed, rather than the label assigned s and worker, should determine employment statL .rt the corresponding rights and benefi -r hiohli ohts the i ud icia rv's role in rec t lvinq such misclassifications and ensu rl n( t _ that workers receive fair treatmen t. oosts and ha d

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi i ;u pra ) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor t ntries lional and ensure appointments adhered to consti :t principles, it is regrettable that its princip I ):; are often misinterpreted or misapplied tc . This legitimate claims of long serving employerr: judgment aimed to distinguish between ' legal" " irreg ular" 1ents. appoin -r r:i in It cateoorica llv held that em olovr i rrequ la r aoooint ments, w ho were en(Ii I re-d-in dulv sanctioned s c:rved continuo uslv for more tha n ten vears g lrould be con sidered for reo u !a rization as a one- time measure. However, the laudable irl .nt of the judgment is being subverted when ins'i utions :: the rely on its dicta to indiscriminately rej: r their claims of employees, even in cases whe' r lack appointments are not illegal, but meri I adherence to procedural formalities. Govtl tLfil€flt departments often cite the judgment in Utr 3 Devi irt to (supra) to argue that no vested r ( regularization exists for temporary em ) c yees, overlooking the : xplicit tion is acknowledgment of cases where regulari, t s;torts te. This selective aDDlication I ro pria ' ent's soirit and ou rDose, effr 2 !:ivelv r have aDon zinq it aqa in st emolovees wt judgment's ./,' - 11 SN, J rendered indispensable services over decades.

27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall 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 .7O.2OlB are quashed; . The appellants shall be taken on dutv forthwith and their services reqularised forthwith. However, the aopellants shall not be entitled Decu n la rv benefits/back wa es for the oeriod thev have not worked for but would be entitled to continuitv of services for the said period and the same a nv t2 SN. J w td re iral benefits e nted for I2st-

11. The Jud qment oft e ADex ourt dated t1.O1.2025 NSC 144 in ..SHR IPAL AND .t\NOTHER v. repo rted i n2O 25r ! 1e relevant c Dara N o .15 to19 are extracted he reu nder: *15. DA st hat ste roll we rend red thei YCars- someti !E workmen services e_r,er several nninq more tha 1- a decade. rC!.! ed in full theEm olover's fail u reto fur ish SU (t records- desoite directrons tod oso -allows aln a vers labo r inference IUrl spru dence. Indian la bour law stror di fav rs per Detual dailv-waqe or contra ual en ga oem ents in r rl'manent in crr mst nces wh nat r a o well- stabl ishr rl wor el oln mu u n der w rk t ral! .! .! a r II I t dismiss s m it o a reemen At this juncture, it would be recall the broader critique of indefinil ( employment practices as done by a recer t this court in Jaggo v. Union of India r paragra phs: I_( co er vear s _!I ispensa b le, ract r rppropriate to "temporarY" iudgement of the following "22. The P contracts, ervasive misuse of tempor I )' employment as exemplified in this t t se, reflects a ,,/ l3 SN, J 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/ -characterized by lack of benefits, job-security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been crjticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoii such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed ln the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. 25. It is a disconcerung 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 ZO24 SCC Online SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: . Misuse of "Temo ora rv" Lab ls: Emolov the f ncti ntn fanin ituti ess n ial a I e ev nw n reoular lled as "tem ar h r em olovee deo nves worke n mtr or mlsclassi catio n of the diqnitv. securitv, and benefits that reqular emD lovees are entitled to desDite oerfor ide ntica I tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a for work ati ften la t4 SN, J .t state of constant insecurity, regardle;; of the quality or duration of their service. . 1.i r:k of Career Progression: Temporary employe: ; often find themselves excluded from opportrl rlties for skill development, promotions, or increm,l l-al pay raises. They remain stagnant in their rc I ::;, creating a systemic disparity between them a t I their regular counterparts, despite their cont'i )utions being equally significant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shie I increasingly resort to outsourcing rol: temporary employees, effectively rr 1 of exploited workers with another. --l only perpetuates exploitation but alr;r a deliberate effort to bypass the ot I regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Ben(l ts: Temporary employees are often denied funda r tental benefits such as pension, provident fund, t'e alth insurance, and paid leave, even when thei- tenure spans decades. This lack of social securitr ;ubjects them and their families to undue hardsl'i r, especially in cases of illness, retirement, ( I unforeseen circumstances." l: Institutions ; performed by lacing one set is practice not ,demonstrates gration to offer

16. The High Court did acknowledge inability to justify these abrupt terminations it ordered re-engagement on daily w. ( measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrol perpetuated precariousness: the Appellan. left in a marginally improved yet still t t While the High Court recognized the im1,r work and hinted at eventual regularizal i afford them continuity of service or meanir ( commensurate with the degree of sti 1 evident on record. ire Employer's Co nseq u en tly, €:s with some tably, this only lvorkmen were r;ertain status. rtance of their rrr, it failed to lul back wages utory violation t- l5 SN, J r considerations, the Appellant Workmen L7. In Iight of these Employer's d iscontin uation of the 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 of municioa! budoet and comDliance with recruitm ent rules merit consi deratio n, such conc rns do not abs lve the Emoloverofs atutorv oblioatlons Ind eed, bu rea ucraticli mitations cannot tru D the leqiti m enw hav de facto re ula r roles for an extended Deriod. entitlements eo itable r e a !n

18. The rmDuo ned order of the Hiqh Co rt, to the nt th enoa qement witho ut co tinuitv dailv-waqe me n inqfu I back waqes. is herebv set aside wath the followtno directi ns: Work en L The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen,s services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.p. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, 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. ( 16 SN, J II. The Respondent Employer sh; I reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their resp( )( tive posts (or posts akin to the duties they previor :;ly performed) within four weeks from the date o. this judgment. Their entire oeriod of absence (fr1 1 f termination until actua! reinstat<rr n shall be coun ed for contin u itv of se r uice and all cons quential benefits. suchass;enioritv and elio ibilitv for oromotions. if anv. n the da n III. Considering the length of servi(€, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o o :he back wages from the date of their discontinu r ifn until their actual reinstatement. The Responder I :mployer shall clear the aforesaid dues within thr: : months from the date of their reinstatement. t Ilq ! t ! .l I IV The Resoondent E m Dlover directed to in itiate a fair and trans Da ren DTocess for req u la rizinq the ADDellan (!n wt thin six months from the date of reinsl consi derinq the fact that thev h ge oerformed Dere nial municioal duties a kin (, ermanen fna ssesstno tequla t :z Dosts Emol ver shall not imo se e < rrcatio al or Droce dura! cri eria ret activ r v if such e utrem tsw r to the Aooellant Workmen or to sim rlv situated e reou lar emolovees in the Dast. r the extent ( that san ctioned vacancies for su, duties exist I or are reo uired, the ResDon ent er shall l1 ll neces sa exDed ite a adm inistra D/e Drocesses to nsure these lo qtime mol )tees are not indefinitelv retai ned on dailv wac r s contrarv to statutorv and equitable norms. L i l I i.l :_

19. In view of the above, the appeal(; Filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appea (s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed." t7 SN. J

12. heA x ud men re 2 7 1 s vs Jaqiit Sinqh and others at Pa ras 54 and it 148 nS eof Case un a and ther s sub-oaras 1 2 of es er: "54 "Ihe Full Bench of the High Coutt, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitted to the minimum of the regular pay- scale, merely for the reason, that the activities caried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The futt benih lowgryer, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held enti ed to waoes at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regutar emptoyee-s. fii exceptions recorded by the futt bench of ine Uign Court 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 att other eligibte candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the reguEr pay scale from the date of engagement. B h r lv. ADD ointee's are continuo t aDDointed aoa inst reoular ned oosts and their services are ava iled th notional b reaks. bv the Stafe lit, I riod i.e. for 7O vears. such dailv waoe hoc or co tractuaI aoootn tees shall be enti m,ntmum of the redu r Dav scale withou t anv Ilo ial na re is available and havins worked for I h o reou lariza on, if nv, m v have to be const ser,aratelv in te sof allv oermissib le scheme. Thei. s (3) In the e after more completion vent, a claim is made for minimum pay scate than three years and two months of of 70 years of continuous working, a daity 18 SN, J wager, ad hoc or contractual employee s't lt be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and twc rnonths,"

13. The i udoment of the ADex Cou rt reDorl scc 247 b ween: state of Karnataka ! !d others v M.L.Kesari a nd others,inpa rticular, Daras 4 _ I) 9 reads as (Clin2O 10(9) u nder: C 7). ln that

4. The decision in State of Karnataka v lJmao= /' was rendered on 10.4.2006 (reoorted in 006 4) sc. case. a Constitut ion Bench of this Court held that ap,) ttntments made without following the due process or the 1 les relating to appointment did not confer any right on th( e,ppointees and rization or re- courts cannot direct their absorption, regu'i ', and the High engagement nor make their service permanel I,= 226 of the Court in exercise of iurisdiction under Artir ; for absorption, Constitution should not ordinarily issue directio't the recruitment regularization, or permanent continuance unless terms of the had been done in a regular manner, il st be careful in constitutional scheme; and that the courts n t h the economic ensuring that they do not interfere unduly tt.i, arrangement of its affairs by the State or its i stru mentalities, e the bypassing nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitl of the constitutional and statutory mandates. r tts Court fu rther r a daily-wage held that a temporary, contractual, casual r nde permanent employee does not have a legal right to be r unless he had been appointed in terms of the r: 2vant rules or in tion. This Court adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Consb\t ctsition and the however made one exception to the above I same is extracted below : I (not ula r ADDO' ntmen s: "53. One asDect n cases where Ir ADDO intments) as exolained inS R 7 7 oararan r7 97 scc 4O9'l and B. N. s tobeclarifie ! _There mav be illesa I Na rava naDpa 2pa t7972 (71 _(41 scc soTl oara 75 above, t t, _dulv oualified e5ts mioht have ersons ,._ continued to n made I '_ without the rs or more work for ten ! tr of tribunals. interventio n fo rders oft The ouestion of reoularizatio of lle services of ferred to I b u rts 'he n h a : r t l 19 SN, J such emDlovees mav have to be considered on merits in the liqht of the principles settled bv this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this iudqment. In that context, the Union of the State Governments and Ind ia instrumentalities should take steos to regularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irreoularlv appointed. who have worked for ten veats or more in dulv sanctioned D osts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that ular rearuitmcnfs are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned Dosts that resuire to be filled uo, in cases where temDorarv emolovees or dailv waoers are beino now emploved. The p rocess must be set in motion within six months from this date. .... "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (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 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 tv- take steDs to a than te of those ir, rved for without the benefit or Drotection of anv interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi. ne-time measure must 20 SN, J 1'l m to s , re on o. n s o6 2 l.r ,st

6. The term 'one-time measure, has to be ,,nderstood in its proper perspective. This .woutd norma y ir, ,-inut after the decision in umadevi. ea.h depaiiui,rl ;r';;, i nstrumentatity should. undertake a one_time exercise and pt t )are a tist of all casual, dairy-wage or ad hoc.emproyees *ni t , r:i"been working ror more than ten vears withoui d; t;;;;;lij Zr rourt, ura tyllu.t1ats ..and subject them to a process / tt.ification as to v:!et!1gr they are working against va'cant post; eni possess the requisite quatification for {he port-i,i V"li'.',l"iuturire their services.

7. At the end of six months from the da, e Umadevi, cases of severat auiry *usuiii" nJi) , Yere still pending before Couis'. r:n)".. departments and instru menta tities did nii ri,,., time regularization process. On the oth l uovernment depaftments or instrumentalitie; one-time exercise exctuding ;;r;;;;t '"u", consideration either on the groind that their ci;, in co.urts or due to sheer oversight. In such ci t employees who were enti ed to" tu ,onriairJi 'i 53 of the decision in umadevi, *itt ,it-i,i loysid.ered for regularization, merely turuu* - exercise was completed without ,i'nriaiii"f,- si x, month period men tio ned in pZ r t ?"-: 1?."_ :1., uds exptreo. lhe one_time exercise shoutd ccr wage/ad hoc/those employees who had pui r conttnuous service as on i 0.4.2006 witho r protection of any interim orders of courts ir' , employer had held the one_time exercise in ten -, Umadevi, but did not consider tn" ,urii ol ,i"_L were entitled to the benefit of para 53 .iUi)i", concerned should consider their cases ut;.,;; , the one-time exercise. The one time exercise vt i, only when the employees who are enti ed i > tn terms of para 53 of umadevi, ur" ,o ,iiiiiin', -alt n L o ec be t L e t I n o n e o e n e o n d, tI t o n n ti i 5 l= r of decision in ,:;ual employees t ently, several rrence the one- hand, some undertook the ltloyees from ':; were pending L mstances, the t terms of para eir right to be the one-time t eir cases, or :;3 of Umadevi ;ider all daity- 10 years of availing the 'ttunals. If any ; of para 53 of ,rnployees who . the employer 1)ntinuation of be concluded be considered t ! ra 53 of o o ous servtce tf cou rts or a evt was vtewof , l|! 2l SN, J o service. Second is to ensure that the th eir Ion departments/instrumentalities do nat perpetuate the Dractice of emplovinq persons on dailv-waoe/ad- hoc/casual for lonq periods and then periodicallv reqularize them on the qround that thev have served for more than ten years, thereby defeatino the constitutional or statutorv orovisions relatinq to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all oersons who have worked for more than ten vears as on 7O.4.2OOG (the date of decision in Umadevi) without the e ossessr, d the rea,urs ile oualification- are entitled to be considered for reqularization. The fact that the emDlover has not undertaken such exercise of reoularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in reqard to a limited few, will not disentitle such emolovees, the right to be considered for reoularization in terms of the above directions in Utnarlewi as a one-finte measure. rotection of an intert cant Dosts, o D

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 law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six mdnths, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/ad - hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fuffill the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for a ( Y',-t \r j 22 - SN, J regularization in suitable lower posts accordingly. This app: r, is disposed of re mere fact sposal their itate, whose L4. In the iud ment of thCA Pex Co ir NihaI Sinqh and others v. State of Puni ab reoo rted in (io13) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case c f absorption of Specia! Police Officers appointed by the wages were paid by Banks at whose rl services were made available. It held that t that wages were paid by the Bank did nrl appellants 'employees' of those Bankr; appointment was made by the State anrl control vested with the State. It held that thc cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre exclusively within the authority of the Sta:, State did not choose to create a cadre but ch appointments of persons creating relationship, its action is arbitrary. It alsp acceDt thedefen is a matter t, but if the since the r render the o,se to make creation of a d isci plina ry co ntractua I re were _ refused to no san, :roned posts Sti r..l g: to utilise f Deoole Iike the ; 1 rlrellants for for the servtce s ft a rtt a s IU en UM ber o d State I (rt fall from sto reat _ J:hem bv a "-Ean-- 23 SN, J cious c of need.R e on the basis of some ratro al assessment J] adevi, it held that the a ooe! la nts b fo arbitraril n a o nt en was no 'irre ular' ointmen h d ma!e a ath the statutorv oroce ure ibed un der Drescr cann ot be heard to sav that P 1861, and the State are not entitled to be absorbed into b s h e State on Dermanent t m ra a not a arn sa ncti osts c I ot beco bv the State. It was held that the udoment in Umadev a licenc for exploitation bv the State a nd r the Governme nt of lities a nd nei se public sector Ba nks can contin ues cha its instru Punia bno Dracti ce ln astent lrrr!th their bliqation to function tn accordance with th tion.

15. The iudomentoft h Dex Court ported in 2015 scc online SC 1.7 een B.Srinivasulu and othe rs V Nellore M c r n Rep, commtssroner, Nellore District nd hra Pradesh and others in oarticu lar Da ras7 a 8 reads as un d er: 24 -Y*l\1 .t - SN, J (7) the G.o n e a .2 2 2 The respondent Mun tctpa by the G.o. 212(supra). menUoned G.O. the respondents kept quiL without regularising the seryice of the apt. to extract work from the appelta nts. 52 t,- .t_ .)l -i !L ,, , _r, =t e 'l n sue of being a statutory spite of the above or almost 20 years ants and continued W###WtilW 16. fn Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar rep_orted (2O15) g SCC 265 the Suoreme Court held that .The behind the exception carved out in this ca!r( was to permit appointment, whi<l are irregular ensure appointme r l:s, which are illegal, and to ensu I I security of ha d s tv regula rization but not illegal, irregular but o me tof of such objective and to n w r s n n h rr i t u e I t f r t es a n 3 :F r29 ve r .l [1 o nte n V I r nth c e ts o e a a o r r V e t: E re s &t i I 25 t7 In rk ndvK al Pra dre SN, J ed n (2o14) 7 scc 223, Co rta Su similar vtew wa taken bv the fol ws: t c' rt. "

18. The Judgment of this court dated o6't2'2022 passed in W'P.No'27602 of 2O19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Tempte, Yadadri, Nalgonda District' which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A'No.937 ot 2023 dated 1O'1O'2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated 09.08.2024 in SLP No'32847 ot 2024'

19. T e e o H a irT st s te fM har sht a o her N IR o2 u m Co 6 a a .10 n 10 hel s I ws 26 ." .r'-r \ '. _l '\l \i 'I sNt - I j I I I i w f where the G "100. The High Courts exercising their j I isdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, n I only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or r the nature of mandamus, but are dutv-bound to r r><ercise such nment or a t has failed to exercise or has wrq 13lv exercised d iscretion conferred uoon it bv a statu :, or a rule.or a oolicv decision of the Gov rnment o' tras ex rcised such di cretion mala fide. or 11r irrelevant consideration. a uthori t

101. In all such cases, the High Court mu; issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compe t,erformance in an appropriate and lawful manner ol lhe discretion conferred upon the Government or a publi,: authority. " 20, The Division Bench of this Court ir its Judqment

10.o6.2013 in W.A.Nos.7 f i:O1O and 85 4 of 2O12 whi le uoholdino the Jud oment da: :,C O8.O .2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.! l:o.48 of 2OO8 observed as under:- "Further, it is manifest from the material c r services of the similarly placed persons who a p Courts were regularized. The a p pella nt-Corpot various office orders/circu la rs dated 20.12. ' 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for casual/contract employees, It is also to be se|t T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practicl or workman. As can be seen from the factt a cases on hand, engaging the respondents fcr continuous period of time on casual basis is r labour practice attracting the provisions of Se ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relyir g of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respor to regularization as directed in the impugn e learned single Judge considered all the aspec: detail, in the proper perspective, which, in o L does not warrant interference in these appeal: . record that the :roached the law ation also issued {\9, 77.O9.7992, regularization of that Section 25- try any employer I scenario of the :;uch a long and cthing but u nfa ir ::ion 25-T of the ln the decisions l3nts are entitled I orders, as the of the matter in considered view , (" :- t 27 SN, J 2L. The D vision Bench of this Cou rt in its Jud oment t9.o9.20L7 oassed in W.P.No.27 2L7 of 2OL7 reoorted in 2O18 2)ALD Daqe 282atoara 16 and para 18 observed as un der: - "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 !994 and G.O' Ms. No'212, dated 22.4.1gg4, 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/reg ula 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 Coutt 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, daled 22.4.!994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in lJma Devi's case (supra)' But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning reg u la rization/absorption exist' Therefore, Act 2 of L994 L OO and G .O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4 4 t e 2 m n d ire cfio ns Bashini Man rred lrv the lower the ieatorv of SuDre me Court i Para 53 o its iudom nt in Uma Devi's It is- t h refore- not Der mrss trle for the case (srrnra) resDondents to take shelter u nder Act 2 of 1994 an G.O. 7.994 N .2 satisf ed the t who have- th e net criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the iudoment i Uma Devi's case (suora). 18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6'2017, in OA No.1442 of 2074, on the file of the Tribunal ls set aside is allowe with the direction o the and the f the servi ces of resDo dents to consider requ larisation ino vacanci es of Work aoainst the etitione rit Detitio n rnitted the exi rizati n 28 SN, J fnsoe ctors and a DDoint them subiect to :lletr sa isfvino the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of ! !e judqment in Uma Devi's case (suora). This Drocess ml be completed within two months from the date of recr I Bt of a coov of this order." [!

22. The Division Bench of this Court ir _ jts Judoment dated 21.O4. 202O oassed in I.A.Nos. 1 ot 20 itlin 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2019 reDorted in 202 (4)ALD Daoe 379 at aras 45, 48 a d oara 5O erved a ! _under:- "45. There is no dispute that petitioners hav: breen working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in aln r st (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimr tr time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuous y working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till ( ate' t-.! w ,.! I t I d ! Devi's ees w r more as not 48. It is not known whv the 1st resItotldent g;e (supra), as exDIa i ned in M.L. Kesari's case (s uora) e gl undertaken a one-time exercise of DreDa nnq the lis _of daily wage _ten (1O) years withou t the interven tion of the Co urts an -l-rib nals as on rificati nasto 10.4.200 6 and subiect them to a Dro cess wheth r thev are workino aqainst vi !lnt oosts and oosses s reouisite o alifications for the osts, and if so, requla rize their servtces. 50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allow: l; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st rt s :ondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization ci s;ervices on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 74, t6 and 21 of the Constitut c 1 of India; thC oularize c 1 _one-time basis resoondents are directed to I _ the oetitioners oetitio ers'services from the date each comDl te 10 vears of service on dai lv tv aqes from the :_l u:v shall not be I )GrslscrhEll-bc E!eo recerDtof w ksf T T rder." € ./ t - 79 SN, J

23. This Court ooines that in the oresent case, the resDondents failed to discha roe their dutv in examini no the reouest of the oetitioner for reoularization of Detitioner's servi ces, who is workinq as part time sweeDer n further to consider m r service of the Detitioner in the last orade oost of oart time cw e fl er as re ular one for L ll nrrrnaeac hr-r rrrant nar ,ct orade oav with DEriodical incr e ment revised from time to time from the date of aDDointme nt of the Detationer, in accordance to taw.

24. h e itioner is en led f consideration of petitioner's case for qrant of the relief as i1 r for in the resent w rvations of the A ex f h m n ( refcrrarl tn a nrl avt zl^lo r d aha ve and the I teur nf Division Bench of this Court in the Judoments referred to and extracted above.

25. Takinq into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. 30 \ SN, J l I b) The submissions made by the learr t:d counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learr r:d standing counsel appearing on behalf of the responderl llos'4 & 5 c) The observations judgments (referred to of the APex Court irr the various and extracted abov€ ) and again enlisted below: i)(2020) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2o17) l scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9)scc247 (vii) (2013) 14sCC 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (2015) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2024 txiil ArR 2o2o SuPreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 sCC 1 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, Page234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD Page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD Page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this (:ourt dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 ol 2O1( and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dattrr O8'O9'2O1O passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C'C'l'tr'48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), ;-iIffii==*3$*.'.: t 3l SN, J e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated L9.O9.2Ot7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2OL7 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 21.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23O57 ol zotg (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 al lowed, the peti roner rs directed to out-forth the claim of the Deti ioner for req u Ia rization of oeti of the oetitio ner to treat the temoorarv servi s of the ioner s servlc s. and also the claim Detitaon er in the last rade oost of Sweeoer as reqular one for all our Doses bv orantinq last orade oav with oeriodical tncremen ts revised from time to time from the date of aDDOln ment of the oetitioner and all conse uentia I evant docume nts in benefits dulv enclosin all the o r suooort of petitioner's case as Du -forth an th rese nt wrltD etition with tn n eriod of o n ( o 1) w eek from date of r of th n 32 shall examln e and consider the same in art < with orinc ioles of natu ' rll in confo law, I ..1 \- SN. J rda nc i ustice bv DTOV idinq an oDDort n itv of Dersonal hee rino to the assed bv ltre Su reme itioner, in terms of orders the iudoment Dassed in W.P.No.24377 o Det Cou rt in Uma Devi's case reoorted in 2OO6 (4 scc P oe 1, 2007 dated 9.2010 reoo rted in 2011 (1) ALD, Paoe 234 a nd as

08.o confirmed in W. A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 10 .t .20L3 ion Bench ludoment of thi ! -Court dated also as oer Divi 19.09 .2OL7 oassed in W. P.No.272 L7 of 20(t f reDo ed in 20LA(2)ALD Daoe 2A2 and also the D it jsion Bench Judqm ent of this Court dated 2L. 4.202' oassed in I.A.N os.1 of 2O2O in t of 2Ol9 in W.P. No.:i: irC57 of 2O19 rted in 2o20(4)AL D oaqe 379 whic h hLad a ained he dat reDo fi na li within a Deriod of four (O4) weeks 1ro of receiot of a coov of th is order dul t_ takinq into consr deration the observatio ns and t e lau ,_ [aid down bv the AoexCourt in the v a rlous iudomen ts (r Eterred to and f the extracted abov ) and in oa rticu !ar, Dara N .53 ftheA ex u Karnataka v UmeDe vl and dulv conr nunicate the : € '' JJ SN. J decasion to the Detitioner. However t here sh ll he no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, ppndino in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- M. NAGAMANI ASSISTANT y:GISTRAR SEcIffioFFIcER To One fair copy to the Hon'ble MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA (for Her Ladyship's Kind Perusal)

1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayathraj Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3- The District Collector and Chairman of Selection, Committee and [t/inimum Wages Committee, Peddapaly District.

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Peddapaly District. 5. The Mandal Parishad, Development Officer, Peddapaly Mandal, Peddapaly District.

6. One CC to SRI CH.GANESH, Advocate IOPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for SERVICES - ll, High Court forthe State of Telangana.

8. One CC to SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY, SC for ZPPIMPP/GPP. [OPUC] '10. 11 LR.Copies

11.The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. 'l2.The Secretary, Advocates' Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

13.Two CD Copies. BSK/MP o HIGH COURT DNIED:2210712025 ORDER WP.No.26008 of 2022 ,?.,'^ ' (r /4. ir- 1 \'\ ".., \.'r 1, '\*'\l i ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t