T. Komuraiah v. SN, J

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 Nos.1 and 3, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and ptanning, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 and Sri. Katta Pradeep Reddy, learned Standing Counset for TG Zpp Mpp GPPS, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5,

2. The Detitioner aoo roa ched the Court seekinq I) raver a s under: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action oF the Respondents in not treating the services of petitioner as regular one in last grade post for working from 36 long years on full time even not paying legitimate wages of Full Time Sweeper, as per appointment order dated 06-05-1985, as unjust, unfair, totally arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 76,27,39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of our Constitution in denying legitimate living wages to petitioner by not implementing Section 13 and 15 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and provisions of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and 4 SN, J *,p 25972,2022 wages to herein to re in last of 06-05- d GO Ms. :isio n and e of Prem I Division 2011 and e rs (DB) of A. P. in r prrnciple ;4 of 2018 Govt. Orders from time to time, to pay living petitioner and prays to direct the Respondents treat the services of the petitioner as regular : grade post from the date of initial appointmenl 1985 as per GO Ms. No. 38 dated 01-02-1980 zt No. 193 dated 14-03-1990 by applying the d': principle lald by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the c'rr Singh Vs State of U.P. (2019 (1) SCC 516) ar Bench of this Hon'ble Court in WP No' 33936 cf Batch Cases dated 02-05-2018 (2020 (4) ALD 3; followed by decislon of the Hon'ble High Cour - W.A.No. 483 of 2021 dated 05-08-2021 based c laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C A' No l Z Apex Court, dated 23-03-2018 to reckon continge of petitioner for computation of qualifying servict: penslon, gratuity and other retirement benefits : consequential monetary benefits in the last including perlodlcal increments, as revised from I with i00 percentage compensation as per prin: Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs' Av: C.A.No. 3416 - 3445 of 2010 and Batch Cases clr 2019 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) bv applving tlt principles and decisions of the Honble Ape> Division Benches under Article 141 of our Co 1 this Honble Court in the case of petitioner and p; ss""'' ted 19-02- r afo resa id Court and ;titution by me to time ple laid bY 1t services to grant of 7 releasing pade post r Chand in 3 e itao ne on h a r )halfof ;m de in the , t ) S)i. J \\p 25971 2022 affid vit filed tn suDo rt of the Dresent writ oetition oertaininq rn rendere dbv petiti ts herein for more than a to the servt ces pa rticu la r respond h e n nds as Drave dforint hepresent writ oetition. relief h PERUS ED THE REC ORD:- DISCUssro N AND CONCLUSION:- 4. Learned unsel a DDEannq on behalf of ition r at th e e e re n case i s souare !v cove bv the order of th is Court.

o8.O9.201 O oassed rn W.P.N o.24377 ot 2OO7 reDort din 2011(1) ALD. Paqe 234 as co nfirmed in W.A.No.7 2ot 2010 , dated 10.06.2013 and also order, dated 1 9.O9.20L7 passed in W.P.No.27 217 of 2O17 reoorte d in 2018 ( ) ALD Paoe 282 and also the rder. dated 2L.O4.2O2O oass ed in W .P.No. 23057 ot 2O 19 reoorted in 2O2O( 4 ) ALD P a o e 379

5. Lea rned standinq counsel aooe a rinq on behalf of the resDondent No.4 submits that the qrievan ce of t-fo h e Writ P n d res ond herein o da 6 SN. J rrp 25972 2(122 refore th titi ne ca no co ln na L! ono n the Iti a o re on en sh iti ner a h nc ninco id nn th I lrievance of ra €:r I for bv the lief as r t t t ion cannot be qranted r in the res nt wit et e a nd noM and amu sca nbe issued aqa inst the etitio her eunder ass ouqht directed to put-forth the peti ron er s oriev fo rth tn the Dres ent WritPetitio n bv wa for and the -'espondents q er mav be ! nce as Put- q f a detailed ron to th f o e s e s e receipt of the said reorese ntati on, the res Do the same in accord a nce nsider f dents would to lat r, within a a nd UDOn re so b e riod. ar ed ounsel ar n n ha fof 1e oet tion er t n u th s 5 b s1 n d l) , the a rned fln o b hal of ttr, t respo ndent 6 o t No.4

7.7 A x urt nt L s nP m tn h o her at r h u n re or ( (2o20) 1 e f '- Pradesh and l SN. J wp_25972 202) "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 reou lar establi sh ment a d the se rces rend red bv them riq ht from the day thev entered establi ualifvino se rvice for ouro ose of Dension. " o tsh il k-cha

8. The A ex Court in the case of Dharwad Distri t PWD Litera te Dailv W qe Emolovees Association Vs. te of s Ka rna taka reoo d in 199O( 2) SCC Pao e 396 laid ori nciDle that the State sh ould not keeo a oe rson in temDo rarv or adhoc servtce for lono oeriod and have to treat such Dersons as reqular one.

9. Pa f a No.53 of the of th e udqment of the Aoex Cou rt t an the State of Ka rnata ka and others V Umadev dated 8 SN. J .\p 25972 20ll 1O.04.2006 reDorted 'n her eun der:- (2006) 4 SCC 1 'l s extracted t 1 a n f c 40 o r e .N. Na ra n lo es u cou s L2 and B.N. NA n ion e 1 67 nd ef rre to n r nsind m for t n n inte ve ion of Th u em lo t s - tere mav be - ( not illeoal ! laravanaPPa tt 11972 (L\ I r) scc 5071 7 of ri rlv oualified ; miqht have l:ontinued to _ rvithout the - of tribunals. t h ion of he er rices of such nst er d- on merits in this Court in the ..1 iqht of this t nton - rf India. the i'umentalities - a one-time I v aPPointed, ear or t rore in dulv sa nctioned DOS ts butnot under cover o I orders of the ' ensure that s rt ken _ to fill those r g be filled uo, sts ha re nt an aon VA e or da ilv wao rs re m or s w ow emD loved. Theor ocess n ru tbe set ln arebe tnq motio n withi n slx tion ofr a e bov re rre t ve nm t to e e t rib na itm nt are u ont sf mt is date o have w rked for h f h r I

10. The iud qme nt of theAoex Cou rt date ( 20.L2.20 24, J 1ro Anita and the releva nt others v Unionofln raa c L2 ed in La 2 1 13 2 26 27 n 2 - rre extracted h hereu nder: 9 SN. J \\p 25972 2022 "12. Despite being labelled as "part-time 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 oi 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. r I lants w

13. The clai m bv the resoond ents that th ese were not reoula r Dosts lacks merit, as the nature of the work oerformed bv the tal t nnial an the functioninq 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. 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 I l0 S\. J rp 15e12 202) the same benefits as regular employees The noted that large Corporations have incre't ted the Practice of hiring tern i adoP emPloY ees or independent contractors as a I of avoiding Payment of emp loyee benefits, increasing their Prof its. This judgment under : the princiPle that the nature of the performed, rather than the la bel assig ned worker, should determine employment stat the corresPonding rights and benefit h hliqhts the udic larv s role in recl ensu tn u h a t ) ..1 s rkers r sificat n er efa rtr t lou rt :reby 30res wo rk r the ; and .rt ( L : ( t rI ncti ne ide df appoint lo € ho wer en a upra) While the judgment in Uma Devi ( 26. ntries soug ht to curtail the practice of backdoor tional and ensure appointments adhered to constit s are principles, it is reg rettable that its princrp often mlsinterPret ed or misaPPlied to den y . This leg itimate claims of long serving emP loyee judg ment aimed to distinguish between legal" rents. "irregular" s in t red in ul ra orn me ts I rr :rved fo m ret one- r o b emeasu re. However, the laudable ir :nt cf t the judgment is being subverted when insti utions rely on its dicta to indiscriminatelY rej': :t the claims of employees, even in cases wher-( their appointments are not illegal, but merel adherence to Procedural formalitles. Gove rnment departments often cite the judgment in Ur^ a Devi supra) to argue that no vested ric ht to ( reg u la rization exists for tem porary eml) fyees/ )xplicit overlooking acknowledg ment of cases where regularizE lion is (l storts appropriate. ffe:, :tivelv t m wh< have n en t judgment's d a a h t e 10 e 1l SN, J \\p 259'12 2022 ren dered deca des. indisoensable servrces over 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.LO.2OlB are quashed; ii. The aooellants shall be taken back on dutv forthwith and their However, the appellants shall not be rvtces re ul ecunra benefits/back waqes for the period thev have not worked for but would be entitled to continuitv of services for the said oeriod and the same itl dto t2 SN. J !.p 25972 2021 uld be cou nted for retira I benefit s," their _ rost-

11. The l d m nt fth A Co r d te i

31.01 .2025 o edi 202 IN L4 in" HRI AL NII ANOT ER v. AGAR N AM HA ABA art ular the releva nt pa ra Nos.15 to1 are extracted he reu nd e r: ( s a a rs, -wa 1! l u nder r the AoPelli rtWI man est that ian I bo rud n e. etu I dai ometimes spa n nrnq more th we I l-esta blis h d r law str rrfl orkm en '15. rt contin u ouslv ren d ered their services )ver severa I ca e v Even if certain muster rolls were n ot pr, Cuc ed in full, Emolov er's failure to fu rnish str_:h records- t to dos o-allows an adv rse d esoite directio n s inference di sfavors flr la qe ments in p ermanent in ful il reouirem ents veil ' after vear dis Den sa ble. e ontra or a aqreement. At this juncture, it would b( appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinii ) "temporary" employment practices as done by a recert judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India i r the following paragraphs: circumstances where the natu re. Mo rallv and nqoinq o t oallv, worke r fa e ut le summaril nicioal a s SN. J $P 25912_2022 "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 Iabour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility tc 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 enoaoed fo work that is essentia !, recurrinq, and inteqral to the functioninq of an institution are often labelled as "temoorarv" or "contractua1," even w en their roles mirror those of emplovees, Such m iscla ssification deorives workers of the dionitv, securitv, and benefits that reqular emolovees are entitled to, desDite performinq identical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen reoular l-1 S'\, J rp 25972 2022 'of in the present case' This practice u I lermines the ptin.ipf"t of natural justice and subjec" wo,rkers to a constant insLcurity, regardles'; cf the quality Itate oi Ouration of their service ' La t k of Career P.ogression: Temporary employeel; . oFten find theirselves excluded from oppoiturt 'ies for skill development, promotions, or incremerl al pay raises' They remain stagnant in their rolo ' creating a systemic disparity between them anrl their regular counterparts, despite their contri I ltions being equallY sig niFica n t. . Uslng Outsourcing as a Shielrl Institutions increasligly resort to outsourcing role; performed by l"rnpo.uiy employees, effectively reP'l lcing one set oi exploited workers with another' Tlr ; practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a oetiOeiate effort to bypass the obl t ation to offer regular emPloYment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benef i' s: Temporary are often denied fundar- 3ntal benefits such as pension, provident fund, hei lth insurance' "rpOV""t and paid leave, even when their tenure spans 0".u0".. This lack of social security ;ubjects them and their families to undue hardshi; especially in cases of illness, retirement' () unforeseen circu msta nces. "

16. The High Court did acknowledge t re Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations Consequently' it ordered re-engagement on daily wa(J rs with some measure of parity in minimum pay' Regre: ably' this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Vorkmen were left in a marginally improved yet still u ^ :ertain status' While the High Court recognized the impr-tance of their work and hinted at eventual regularizati( n' it failed to affordthemcontinUityofserviceormeanin..ulbackwages 15 SN, J \tp 2591) 2022 commensurate with the evident on record. degree of statutory violation t7. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuatlon 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 thev were enqaqed in Disputes Act, L947, and that erennial d r r+ s t h aca rerr.r rlza an nai ha r releqated to Deroetual un certaintv. While concerns and comDliance with of municiDal budoet recruitment rules merit considerataon, such concerns do not absolve the Emolover of statutorv oblioations e ntia I ne ate e uita le nti m n bu reaucratic limitations cannot trumo he leqitimate riohts of workmen who h ve served continuouslv in de facto reoular roles for an extended period. 1 8. The im n u tt ned 6 rric r rtt f h Hi tt h Cnrrrt t.r tha extent thev confine the AD Dellant Workmen to future dailv-waoe enoaoement without contanuitv or h h anrn ful ba kwa es ish reb followinq directions: I. The discontinuation oF the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 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 l6 s\. l \t) 25912 201: date of their termination, for all purp I ;es, including seniority and continuity in service' e d of abs -einstate the Ii. The ResPondent EmPloYer shall re posts (or Appellant Workmen in their respecli y performed) posts akin to the duties they prevloui rls judgment. within four weeks from the date of : r the date of Th lr en tre e termina tion u til a ual r instaten lnt) shall be I and all cou n ted for t:nl oritv a nd con s ill. Considering the length of service' the Appellant Workmen shall be entltled to 50o/o of tl e back wages from the date of their discontlnuati rn until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent :mployer shall clear the aforesaid dues within thret: months from the date of their reinstatement. contin u itv of ser\l ce su h ib i litv for oro motions, if a nv. uen ial b nefi l. In D nt Em , directed to rocess for ithin stx n nial m unicioal d uties akin assessi nq IV. heR s o in itia mo nths from the date of re inst:r em nt d con s id erl nq the fact that thev har e erf rme rDe rmanen t reqular zation, the i I)osts. er hall not m r t Em if such ur lcr :l f to the re utrem ents we aorrl ied or tos miii rlv situ ated AD e!!an tWo rkme rther extent t d uties exist that sancti oned vacancie for suc t nolover shall ! r ar ve Drocesses e t 'ees are not inde rnltelv retai ed on dailv waq s contrarv to ees in th ula em at nal Res n v a e !l € t7 SN, J \|p_25972 2022

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."

12. The Aoex Court in a iudq ent reoorted in (2O17) L Suoreme Court Cases 148, i State of Puniab and others vs Jaoiit Sinoh and others at Paras 54 and its sub-oaras (1)(2)(3), of the said iudoment observed as under: "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitled to the mintmum 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 Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder: - "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appotntee 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. wa e a c aoDointees are not aD otn ted aoainst reoular nd their servi' nel breaks, th no , continuo uslv the Sfa?e Government or its i,nstru menta lities for a su c ient riod i,e. for 7 er, hoc or cont ctual aooointees shall entitled to minimum of the reoular oav scale without anv onth e assumotion that work of allowances oerennial nature is available and havina, worked for f tim an h lon ersons n h| r8 SN, J re ularizati n, if an v m vha ve a rm of t- z considered it te s cheme, ';;; -iui / ?\ ln the event, a claim is made for min't )um pay scale tn,"e vears and t"\') .months of ';;"', ciipt"tion of 1O years oi continuous v'r rking' a dailY ioqZ,, ua hoc or contractual employee sha t be entitled to 'u):iu,:ti, a period of three years and twc nonths'"

13. Th ud men of h A ex co rt re o trr I in 10 c 24 b n of Ka n t_a d others v M.L esafl an o hers ln rti ular a ras 4 )I ds as u n der:

4. Ibe dec]:rion ill State-of Karnataka v' |J!nad-'\ i- wd-s-I9n de[ed irpl.isoEft"pnr-Ledin zooa (qt scc t).-17 tba!sase-a *c"iJti-la"t aiii"akit c"r,t h"td that appc ntments made *.g the due process or the . r ) es relating to *ti;i:iAt annointmentdidnotconferanyrightonthetppointeesand canqot direct their absorption' regult ization or re' ;;;;t make their service permanert and the Hish Z;;;";;r;;or Zo'ri- in exercise of jurisdiction under Artlt e 226 of the iinrtitutiou should not ordinarity issue direct.ior: for absorption' regularization, or permanent continuance unles:; lhe recruitment had been done in a reqular manner' ir terms of the constitutionat scheme; and ihat the courts m't :t be careful in ;;t;r;;; that thev do not interfere unduly wtt t the economic Ziri"iii-irt of it's arfairs bv the State o: it? . r strumentalities' nio, tind themselves to be in'struments to facilit't' e the bypassing 'oi tn-i ,onstitutionat and statutory mandates'.1-t is Court further held that a temporarYt contractual, casual c' a daily-wage pmnlovee does not have a tegal right to be '1 ade permanent "r;;:E;;;; iiJ o"in in terms of the rct )vant rutes or in )Aiirunr" of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitt tion This Court however made one exception to the above E)sition and the same is extracted below : "p,pointed av be "53. One asD ect needs to be clarifiet' ef s (not illeoal here irreqular ADDOrn .t Na rava naDDa x, ,,,D r1972( 7) R. aoara ian fl 97I rcl scc s07l 72 and B.N. 7 scc 409 N u 9 t U l9 SN, J \tr 25972 2022 ment. In that contex and referred to in para 75 above, of dulv oualified persons in dulv sanctioned vacant Dosts miqht have been made and the emDlovees have continued to intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The ouestion of reoularization of the services of such emplovees mav have tc) be considered on merits in the lisht of the principles settled bv this Court in the cases above ferred to and in the lioht f India, the Sfa te Governments and th ir instrumentalities should take steos to regularize as a one-time measure. the services of suchir reoularlv apoointed, who have worked for ten vears or more in dulv sanctioned Dosts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that teqular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned Dosts that reg.rirc to be filled uo. in cases where temporary emplovees or dailv waoers are beino now emoloved, The Drocess 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. l0 SN, I v. _r li9ll 2022 a dutv ,nstrum entalitv. UDon th (ni) Um evi ca fs Governm ent or reaula rtze the servtces of those irreoula ore th ees who had served e olov co urts ort ribuna ls, asao d t concerned ! ? steps to !'v apDointed an ten vears f ithout th e ben efit or Drotectionof anv int "tm o me meas 1'e. umadevi, lfttI ;tb that such one -time m easUl€ 2' its decision o nw nd redon 70.4.2006 ) nth fro ne-ti er. 5e r t

6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be u-t lerstood in its "al"it,"ii" -ri)aivi, nroDerDerslective,ThlswouldnormallYmealIthatafterthe eacn department or each nstrumentalitY should undertake a one-time exercise and prep re a list of all "r,itr"t, i"iti iatge or ad hoc employees who ha t : been working for more than ten years without the interventitt' of courts and 'iiornitt a,id subject them to a process vtt.fication as to ld possess the ii,iitnZ, they are working agatnst vacant posts 'rl"iiir'r" quutification ror t-ne post and if so' egularize their ' - services. 7. At the end of six months from the dak: of decision in lJmadevi, cases of several da ily-wage/ad - hoc/ca ;ua I employees tiitt pending before Couits' Conse('L entlY' several i"r" dipartments and iistrumentalities did not con't lence the one- regularization process' on the oth?t hand' some iii" Cor"rni"nt departments or instru mentalitie: undertook the one-time exercise excluding several e;r ployees from -c.ais-iduiation either on the groind that their cai s were pending ii courts or due to sheer iversight' In such ci 't umstances' the who were entitled to be considered t 1 terms of Para iS'of'tnu decision in lJmadevi, will not lose t teir right to be "iiitiivi"t the one-time cinsiaereO for regularization, merety becau:;t , w'as coipleted without considering heir cases' or "i"liii. ii,"rarr" the six month period mentioned in pa'-' 53 of Umadevi iis expirea. The one-time exercise should c''t rsider all dailY- iiq.);anlirnose emptovees who n-a-d orly 't, 70 vears of continuous service as on 10'4'2006 withot t availing the ;;"i;rti", of any interim orders of courts or ribunals' If any '"^p1or", had held the one-time exercise in te;t 1s of para 5j of lJmadevi,butdidnotconsiderthecasesofsoneemployeeswho i"r" .riitl"d to the benefit of para 53 of umaoe ri' the employer 'iirl.r:nii tnould consider their cases also' as ' continuation of tie one-time exercise. The one time exercise v ill be concluded 2t SN, J \vp 25971 2022 only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered. ehind the said Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure that those who have Dut tnm ore then ten vears of continuou , of an tn rlm o r n u f^ tribuna ,s before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are deDartments / instru mental ities do not DerDetuate the ractice of em hoc/casual for lono De s and then oeriodicallv ervice, Second is ih2i ize them on the s who have work more than ten vears. therebv defeati no th e co n stitu tion a I or sta d aDDointment. Thet rue effect of the direction is that all e 7O.4.2OOG (the date of decision in Umadevi) without the rotection fan ,n vacant Dos ts, Dossessrn o the reouisite oualification, are entitled to be considered for reoularization. The fact that t the em lo rh h onths of the decision in reoularization within s I reoard to a limited few. will not disentitle such nsidered for reoularization emolovees. the rioht to be in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-tjtne measure. i or that such exercise f an ,s n k c

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 the rea fter.

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 months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casua l/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 22 SN,.I Np.2.5911 202.) them, their services have to be regularized' If st has already been undertaken by ignoring or on t of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency then their cases shatl have to be considered in the said one time exercise within three months' l say that if the respondents do not fulfill the r Paira 53 of Umadevi, their services need not b2 the employees who have completed ten year: possess the educational quatifications prescribect the time of their appointment, they maY b€ regularization in suitable lower posts' This appet accordinglY. ah an exerctse ting the cases 'f these cases, :o ntin uatio n of is needless to 'quirements of reg u larised. If ;ervice do not 'or the post, at considered for 'is disposed of Int h e iud oment of the A oex Cou ll Nihal Sinqh l t4. an othersv.state of Puni b reoorted in( 2 013) 14 scc 65, the Supreme Court considered the case c f absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the ;tate' whose wages were paid by Banks at whose rl sposal their services were made available. It held that lhe mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did nt t render the appellants 'employees' of those Bank I since the appointment was made by the State arrr I disciplinary control vested wath the State. It held that ttrr ' creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadrt is a matter exclusively withan the authority of the Sta te, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but ( hose to make persons creating contractual ;o refused to action is arbitrarY. It al appointments relationshiP, its 23 SN, J ' p_25912 2022 t defen ce at the h a n ctio ned ost and so there was iustification for the State to utilise services of larqe number of oeoole like the appellants for decades, It held that "sanctaoned oosts do not fall from heaven" and that the State has to create them bv a conscious choi ce on the basis of some rational assessment of need. Referrinq to Umadevi. it held that the aDDellants before them were not arbitrarilv chose their initial aooointment was not an 'irreqular' aooointment as it had been m ade in accordance withth e sta utorv orocedu t orescribed under the Pol ice Act, 1861, and the State cann otb e heard to sav that thev a e not entitled to be absorbed into the services of the state on Dermanent f basisas accordino to it, their aooo tntmen ts were Durelv temoorarv and not aoainst nv sanctioned Dosts created e State. It was held that the iudqment in Umadevi cannot become a lice ncefor exDloitation bv the State and its instru menta lities and neither the Government of Puniab nor those public sector Banks can continue such a practice inconsistent with their obliqation to function in accordance with the Constitution. 24 ) SN,.I Np_ l-igi I l02l

15. The iud oment of the Apex Court re DO ed in 2O15 n B.Srinivasulu ndothersv scCOn ine SC 1797 betwee nicioal Cor oratio n ReD .bv its C a mmtssloner, artic lar o h rs tn Mu Ne I hra Prad sh re Distr N 7 nd 8 rea s n 2 o d o (7) Hioh Cou It The riaht of the a t t adppted bY,the 'regylAtZoltPn appellant nly prjer:LoLlte t to the is,Lre,-ol ('nq a statu to rY i ? of the above tlmost 20 Years without regularising the service of the appellar t; and continued to extract work from the appellants' 1 The

22. In the circumstances, refusinq the ben: it of the above B. ientioned G.O. on the gro'und tnai the appe'l' nts approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not ustified' In the ,iirr *,tiu,nr"t, the appeal is atlowed modifyintt tne order under ;p;;"il;i directing tnut h" appellants' service ; be regularised ii[n erfect from ihe date of their completine their five year continuousserviceaswaslaiddownbytllis:outfinDistrict Coiie:cto(Chairperson & Others vs. M'L Singt 1ors 2009 (8) SCC 48O,

15. In Am Rai v Stat ofBihar re D( e ) 'ted ( 2015 )8 e 65 Co rt held that 'I'he objective behind the exception carved out in this caso was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular to ensure aPPointmer ts, which are but not illegal, and f illegal, and to ensu r! s curit irregular but not 25 SN, J wp )5972 2022 emolovm nt of those Derso s who had served the State nment and th lr l rumentali ies for m r rlat rc" Tn that cas m as workin tor 2 O rrar f Th is deci sion aDDroves ear li er view exDressed in M.L.Kesar i extracted above. L7. In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasa ( 20t4 7 saa 223 similar view w e < t reDorted an tr lzan hrr SuDreme Court and it was held as follows : e levant con en ndent em lo e "47.... rn v e of the cateoorical f indino of fact on the have continued in their service for more than 70 vears conti n u ouslv th erefo re. the leoal orinciole laid down bv vUm ev u 2006 scc ( &S) 73) at Dara 53 souarelv (2006) 4 SCC 7 . The Division Ben of th lies to e Hioh Court has rioh tl held that the resDondent emplovees are entitled for the relief, the same cannot be interfered with bv this Court." in Umadevi ca

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed tn W.P.No.276O2 of 2OL9 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in w.A.No.937 0t 2023 dated 10.10.2023 and also 26 S\. J \p lr()-l l (ll2 confirmed by the order of Apex (: )urt dated 09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024' Theiu dq ment of the Apex court in t ari Krish n a L9, Mandir Trust V. state fMa harashtra and otl Court 39 59a ndi n oir tn AIR 202os sf il f ar 101 he rs re s.1OO a e I No "100. The Hig h Courts exercising their juri diction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not :nly have the ower to issue a writ of mandamus or in :he nature of p I ercise such mandamus, ! lic authoritv has failed toe erci e or has wron c lv exercised rar le or I as exercised relev nt )l b wer w r a tat m o Go t,3 t d n n ( consld ratio n. 101. In all such cases, the High Court must iss-ue a writ of .*Oi-rt and give directions to compel rerformance in un uppropriute and lawful manner of the discretion .onf.ir"O upon the Government or a public uthority " n hof in its Judq ment n

20. Th Divi dated 1 .o6.2013 assedin W.A.Nos.78 2 o1' 2O1O nd of 2O 12 whil uoholdin the ludq ment dal.1 rd O8.09'2O1O passed in w. P.No. 4377 ot 2OO7 and C.C. 1o.48 ot 2O o8 4 I observed as under:- "Further, it is manifest from the material c r record that the services of the similarly placed persons who ;1 proached the law € 27 SN. J \tP--25911 2422 Courts were regularized. The a ppella nt-Corporatio n also issued various office orders/circulars 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 rs 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 ali the aspects of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals." 2L, ivision Bench of thi c n dated 19.O 9.2017 Dassed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2017 reDorted in 2018(2) ALD Da o e 282 at Dara 16 and Dara 18 observed as under:- '16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the 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 ot 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 perlod of not less than 10 years. it has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma 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/a bsorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 1OO and G.O, Ms. No.212, dated 28 s\' l NP 15971 lr-)12 r r n e r t have, ad ittedl

22.4. t994 do not t n hittle dow the wi( t h in Maniula Bashini's c.ase (suDlI ), does not v the t-< ii u db a Devi's Uu i:; ,ibl ! )94 and G.O. I larization to ;atisf ied the g ment in Uma c in Para 53of its iu dqme nt Su reme Court res DOnd ents to take shelter u nde rAct2of Ms. N o.212 dated 22.4. 994. to denv rec the oetitioners ,wh ria la id down inP ara No.53 of the ud Dev i's case (suo a). t ed 27.6.2017 , 18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, d al is set aside in OA No.1442 of 2074, on the file of the Tribt ecti on to the and hew n res oondentstoc onsid er re ou la risation ofl ,! e services of the Detit ioners aoal nst th exrs ino va ca n :res of Work eir satisfv rnq Ins the criteria la id down in Para No .53 of th iudoment in Uma Devi's case (s uDra ) . This Drocess mus L be comoleted 2 of a coov of t e d o ( t_ !_ hi wo this order"'

22. The Division Bench of Court in edinl .A.No .L ot 2O2 in1 of 20 19 dated 21. 04.2020 oas an w.P.No.23O 57of 2019 reDorted in 2O2! (4)ALD Paoe ara Oob s _ rnder:- ara 45 4 an ( 79 "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have t een working on daity wage since 1990 and have put in almc 5 t. (30) years of t"r,ji." UV now. They have been given minimurr tim,e-scale from ifre year'ZOOO. They have been continuously vorking without any -ourt orders in their favour from 1990 till c ' te'

10. 4.20(J6 and su biect wh ther hev a em to workinoa () the I rdent has not e (suora), as I undertaken a _ of dailv waoe ! ten (10) vears _ Tribunals as on a Droc s\ 1 :rif ication as to oainst Va,: lnt oosts and rbt..ttu....,, 29 SN, J \|p 25972 2022 oossess reouisite oualifications for the posts, and if so. reqularize 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 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the resDondents are directed to reo u arize on one-time basis fr m he dat eac comDlete 10 vears of servi e on dailv waoes from the n^t ha said exe rrica ch:ll ha anli+lad +^ r6w rrr.r"iata rv f h tr a nt Erri ihaw <hrll oi nt r lief , Th e f i coDv of the order, " k from the r

23. hat in the h n discha e their d x for reoularization of the reouest of the petition er Detitaoner's services, who is workinq as fulI time contin o ent sweeDer and further to consider his re o u est to treat the tem orarv service of the oetitioner in the last qrade Dost of full time sweeDer as requl a r one for all ith oeriodica I ourDoses bv orantino last orade oav increment revis ed from time to time from the date of tn +men I of th e+ili ana r rda et 24, This Court oines that Detitioner is entatled for n r case for r he relief Draved for in thED resen t Writ P etition i n vtew of the 30 s\. i \ ) 259?2 2012 o bserv atio nsofth E ADCX Court in var rou!; iudoments (r erred to an extracted above) and the ' iew of the n Bench of th is Court inthe Judqment s referr ed to Divisio and extra cted above. ratio n int consl

25. Ta tn a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances ol' :he case' b) The submissions made by the learr ed counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and leat r ed standing counsel appearing on behalf of the responderrt Nos'4 & 5' c) The observations of the Apex Court irr the various judgments (referred to and extracted abovt ) and again enlisted below: i)(2020) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 Law Suit(SC) 1209 (v) (2017) l SCC 148 (vi) 2o1o(9)scc247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (201s) 8 SCc 265 (x) (2oL4)7 scc223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2O24 (xii) AIR 2O2O SuPreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 ScC 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD Page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 3l SN, J \\p 25912 2022 d ) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2010 and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dated 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2008 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated L9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.272t7 ot 2O17 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed an I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.23057 of 2OL9 (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 allowe d. directed to out-forth the claim of the Detitioner t he Detitioner reqularization of Detitioner's servtc es. and also the claim of the Detitaoner to treat the temDorarv services of the oetitioner in the last qrade post of continqent Sweeoer as reoular one for all ourooses bv orantinq last orade pav 32 s\. I rl) 25911 ll l: I ointment of with oerio dical in creme nts revised from time o time f rom the petitio er and a ll the date of aDD r eo u ential benefits, dulv en losinq all I he releva nt ooort of DE itio ner's cas ments in oresent writ DCtition, within a oeriod of o t e (O1) week of recei otof coov of the or der and the ents shall examine and consid er lhe same ln f natur i ustice bv orovidinoano DOO rtunitv of oer sor1rl hearinq to the oetition e r, in termsofo rders from the date assed bv:he a! DU -forth nce o law res ond rl es h I Court in Uma Devi's case reoorted in 20 06(4 SCC PA oe 1, o8.o c n 77 inW P.No. ud ment 9.2010 re oorted tn ZOLL ( 1) ALD, Paqt 2 4a firm inW .A.No.78 2of2O 1O dated 1O. t ent of h oer Division Bench J udom 20 I also as .20L3 and Cou rt dated

19.O 9-20L7 oassed in W.P. No.272 17 ot 2O() I re 2a2 and also th Di ,tsl n Bench 20 Ju 18(2)ALD oaq dqment of this Cou os.1 of 2O 20 inlof dated 2r.o4.202 ODassed in n W.P. No.: 3057ot2o19 I 2019 I.A.N reported in2O 20(4)ALD oaqe 379 which _ had attained the date e tit within e rto JJ Sl'J, J \\p 25912 2022 of receiDtofacoovoft is order. dulv takinq into consid era tion the observatio ns and the law laid down bv the Aoex Court in the variou iudoments (referred to and extracted above), and in o rticular, oara No. 53 of the the Apex Court in the case of State of iudoment of rnataka v. Uma Devi a nd dulv co m te th e dseisioo to the petataoner. However, there shall be no d s costs. Miscellaneous petitions, iF any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. l) ,1,^ft8P.+RSYkLt"',1H1[ ./ Lt./\_./ IITRUE COPYI' SECTION OFFICER onerair"'evt'l[E[$r::Ell[l''i''.iJf1:f'u"f 'o'LTNANDA To,1::: l , IH:I,. prala parishad, Karimnagar District, Rep ry its Chief Executive ' [:*lllXl|,i[T" Deveropment orricer, Ganga< hara Mandar, ?^ 9n" CC ro SRt CH GANESH, Advocate tOpUCl 10.Two CCs ro Gp FoR per.rcHnveinnj hURAi r) _V,High Cotr( for rhe .. State^oJ Telangana. [OUT] 1 1 Two CCs tr G-p FOR FINANCE AN.D PLANNtNG I .igh Court for the _ ^ ' ,, SERVT.ES i' n'sA cor.t ror t e srare orrerangana State_oJ felanqana. at Hyderabacj fOt lri " KATTA PRADEEP REDDY, SC F : R TG ZPP MPP "'*'lr!"t;l?r:353- 3ts8..?J3;3i 14 Two CD Copies BM BS (r HIGH COURT \ DATED:2410712025 CC TODAY i! t SIriF 0 t o ''-.... -\, _c 'l). ! I irE[ 20?5 ,: -d'/ * ,/./ .// '/ ORDER WP.No.25972 of 2022 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITI. OUT COSTS Y,q-

1.1 \ 15--