The High Court · 2025

Order

Heard sri ch.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; learned Government pleader for services-Il, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2t sri Katta Pradeep Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Zilla Parishad appearing on behalf of respondent No'3'

2. The petitioner aoproached the court seekinq oraver as under:

.....to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner by treating him as daily wage employee in view of the confirmed orders of Honourable supreme Courton14-05-2015inSLP(Civil)No.15595of2015, bythepetitionerandupongrantingdailywagesasper G.O.Rt.No.108, dt.29-05-2015' Even though denying the regularization of the services of the petitioner in thelastgradepostasperG.o.Ms.No.2l2,Financeand Planning(FW.PC.III)Department,dt'22-04-1994'as highly illegal, unconstitutional against the principles of 4 sN'J W.P.No.657 of 2021 natural justice and prays to direct .the respondents trerein to regularize services of the petitioner as per (i.O.Ms.No.2L2, Finance and Planning (FW.PC.III) t)epartment, dt. 22-O4'L994, bY treating him as daily vrage employee as per confirmed orders up to l-lonourable Supreme Court in favour of petitioner by applying the principle laid by the Honourable Supreme Couft in the case of B.srinivasulu Vs. Nellore Municipal Corporation, in Civil Appeal No. 6318 of 2015, dt, 17.08.2015, and upon his regularizing to reckon c,)ntingent services rendered by the petitioner from 20-L2-L985 as qualifying service to grant gratuity and p,3nsionary benefits by applying the principle laid by Hon'ble Supreme Couft in the case of Netram Sahu Vs. Sr-ate of Chhattisgarh in Civil Appeal No.1254 of 2018, dated.23.03.2018 with all consequential monetary bt:nefits including seniority in the last grade post in the interest of justice."

3. learned counsel aooearino on behalf of the oetitioner olacinq reliance on the averments made in the affidavit filed in suooort of the present writ oetition pertaininq in palticular, to the services rendered bv oetitioner with the resoondents herein for more than a decade contends that the oetitioner is entitled for the relief as oraved for in the present writ oetition 5 sN,J W.P.No.657 of 2021

5. \ \ \ ;'. ,il -.*, :,. .::i -i': 6 sN,J W.P.No.657 of 2021 to Iaw, within a reasonable oeriod.

6. of the respondent No.3.

7. "36. There are some of the employees who have not beren 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 wclrk-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been rer;ularized under the Government instructions and / { t 7 SN'J W.P.No.657 of 2O2l of this Court in State of even as per the decision 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 Yea rs without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regula rized of such emPloYees' In the facts of the case, those emploYees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It to regulate them for conside ration of regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as However, it is made clear that theY a regula shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had theY been continued in service regularlY before atta ining the age of superann uation. TheY shall be entitled to receive the pension as if theY have ld not be ProPer r one. ,, I : I ,. i ;. :, i: 8 SNJ w.P.No.657 of 2021

10. 9 sN,J W.P.No.657 of 2021 *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. offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation 197 F.3d LL87 (gth 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 .' : , ,:,: : :l r"' .,:., l0 SN'J W.P.No.657 of 2021 :lassified certain workers as independent ,:ontractors, thereby denying them employee renefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the \inth Circuit determined that these workers ,A/ere, in fact, common-law employees and r^/ere entitled to the same benefits as regular (lmployees. The Court noted that large (lorporations have increasingly adopted the l)ractice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the l,abel assigned to the worker, should cletermine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It n 2:,6. While the judgment in Uma Devi (:supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is rr:grettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. n :] However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on iB; dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their 1t sN,J W.P.No.657 of 2021 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, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This indisoensable 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 functionlng, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. 2a. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court i:,. F,i t-: m ffi', \'l \ . 'il ' 1 ,l .l ,i .,i a ',' ,,..:l: i .; . lL .-,.' ll, .l.t::- :lf: _it {i .. J! , ,. .1 "::li -r ii..,'. ii :- , .:l ':.. t. _,' i, .\!.) :i: l2 SNJ W.P.No.657 ot202l and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 .L0.2018 are quashed; il. would be counted for their oost- retiral benefits."

11. extracted hereunder: "15. It is manifest that the Aopellant Workmen ) ) l3 SNJ W.P.No.657 of 2O2l disfavors oerpetual dailv-waoe or contractual enqaqements in circumstances where the work is oermanent in nature. Morallv and legallv' workers who fulfil onooino municioal requirements vear after vear cannot be dismissed summarilv as disoensable, oarticularly in the absence of a oenuine contractor aoreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recal! the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs: *22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, os exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of r#'$i:" :llr, i i:;' :it'-'ir =\ I 14 SNJ w.P.No.657 of m2l 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: o Misuse of "Temoorarv" Labels: Emolovees enoaoed for work that is essentaal, recurrinq, and inteoral to the functionino of an institution are often labelled as "temoorarv" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of reoular emolovees. Such misclassification deorives workers of the dioniW. securiW, and benefits that reqular emolovees are entitled to. desoite oerforminq identical 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 state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. . Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate l5 SN,J W.P.No.657 of 2021 effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances." 16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record.

17. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were i:. iiJ, t6 SNJ W.P.No.657 of 2021 I :l 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 date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or to the duties theY PreviouslY posts akin within four weeks from the date of performed) this judgment. I T7 SN,J W.P.No.657 oI2O2l promotions, if anv. III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. imoose educational or orocedural criteria retroactivelv if such requirements were

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. I I 18 SNJ W.P.No.657 of 2O2l 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 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 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 all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2) But if daily wagers. ad hoc or contractual sufficient lono period i.e. for 7O years such assumption that work of perennial nature is available and havina worked for such lono oermissible scheme. (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 70 years of continuous working, a / / f I 19 SN,J W.P.No.657 o12021 daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be arrears for a period of three years and entitted two months." -to

13. The iudgment of the Aoex court reoorted in to 9 reads as under:

4. The decision in state of Karnataka v. umadevi was rendered on 10.4.2006 (repofted in 2006 (4) SCC il' In that case. a constitution Bench of this court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re- engagement nor make their service pirmanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not -ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not inteffere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been apiointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 74 and 16 0f the constitution. This court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : t 20 SNJ W.P.No.657 of 2021 "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 70 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. It't other words, the State Government or its ilstrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in senrice voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (it) 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 qualification, the appointments will be considered to be ill,zgal. But where the person employed possessed the prcscribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been seleded without f' 2l SNJ ril.P.No.657 of 2O2l I I undergoing the process of open competitive selectiory such appointments are considered to be irregular. (iiir llmadevi casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentaliV to takq steps to reiiiiii e services of those irreoularlv aPpointed iiployees who had served for more than ten vears the benefit or protection of anv interim iiiiiut orders of courts or tribunals- as a one-time measure. directecl that such one-time measure must within six months from the date of -Umadevi its decision (rendered on 7O'4.2OO6), 6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decis'ion in lJmadevi, each department or each instrumentatity should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list-of alt casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees 'who have been working for more than ten years without the intenrention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their sen/ices' 7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in tJmadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employe:es were stilt pending before Courts. Consequently, s"rerit departments and instrumentalities did not commence'the one-time regularization process. on the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the groind that their cases were pending in courts or due to s'heer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees_ who were entitted to be considered in terms of Para 53 0f the decision in lJmadevi, witl not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was coipteted without considering their cases, or period mentioned in para 53 of because the six umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider att daity:wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 70 years of Zontinuous senrice as on 10.4.2006 'without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribuiats. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of lJmadevi, but did not 'month \\ 22 SNJ W.P.No.657 of 2021 consider the cases of scme 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 in para 53 of is to ensure that those Umadevi is two- fold. who have ouC in more than En vearc of continuous service withouc the protection of anv inbrim orders of cour8 or tribunals. before the daE of decision in atmadevi was ,endered, are considered for reoularization in view of Cheir lono seruice. Second is to ensure that the departmen8linstrumencatities do not peroetuab the oractice of emolovina oersons on dailv-waoelad-hoclcasual for lono oeriods and then ,oeriodically reoularize them on the gtound that thev ,have serued for more than ten vears. therebv defeating the constitutional or statutorv provisions !.elatino to recruitment and appointment. The true pffect of the direction is tha ,oia hha rnttbanl flaE of decision in Um 9f anv interim otder of anv court or Cribunal, in possessing the ,eouisile oualification, vacant ",osfs,. are entitled to be considered for reoularization. fhe fa.t that the emplover exercise of reoularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was underhken onlv in reoard to a limited few, will not disenCitle such employees, the rioht to be considered lor reoularization in fcrrms of the above directions in ltmadevi as a one-time measure. lat marc ihzn ian 1n, 9t. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in lJmadevi. The Appellant (Zila F'anchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of n?spondents of regularization within six months of the oecision in Umadevi or thereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents shoutd be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs f f ( I t I I t t I I , i ,,I i :: 23 SNJ W.P.No.657 of 2O2l be given, in view of lJmadevit 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/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 5j of Umadevi. If they futfitt 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 fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of lJmadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten yearc service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.

14. SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for _ i, :-. 24 SN,J W.P.No.657 of 2021 a cadre is a matter exclusively Lvithin the authority of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitnary. anv sanctioned oosts created bv the State. It was held {r i ( 25 sN,J W.P.No.557 ot202l

15. The judoment of the Aoex Court repofted in (7) We find it difficult to accept the reasoning adopted by the High Court. The right of the apoellants to seek regutarization flows from the G.O. No.272 dated 22.4.7994. Tie apoellant have been in service of the first respondent not only prior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subseauent to the issue of G.O. till today. The respondent Municipatity being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the aPPellants. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the 8. above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed -modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appetlanis, senrices be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous sentice as this Court in District was taid down by 26 SNJ W.P.No.657 of 2021 Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Slngh & Ors. 2009 (8) scc 480.

16. a (2O15) 8 SCC 265, the Suoreme Court held that'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and ,T)

17. r 27 sN,J W.P.No.657 of202l has riahtlv held that the respondent employees are entitled for the relief. the same cannot be interfered with by this Court."

18. The Judgment of this Court dated o6.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.276O2 of 2019 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2023 dated 1O.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24in SLP No.32847 ot 2(J24.

19. The judoment of the Apex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others reoorted in AIR 2O2O Suoreme Court 3969 and in oarticular para Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows: "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are duW-bound to exercise such oower, where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wronolv exercised discretion conferred uoon it bv a statute, or a rule, or a oolicv decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide, or on irrelevant consideration. 28 SNJ W.P.No.657 of 2021

101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority."

20. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judoment dated 10.06.2013 Dassed i W.A.Nos.782 of O1O and 854 ,of 2O12 while uoh 98.O9.2O1O passed an W.P 1 inq the Judoment dated c.c.No.48 of 2OO8 observed s under:- "Further, it is manifest from the material on record that the r;ervices of the similarly placed persons who approached l:he law Courts were regularized. The appellant-Corporation also issued various office orders/circu lars dated :10.12.1989, LL.O9.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being ,1.7 .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 tre seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, e:ngaging the respondents for such a long and continuous p,eriod of time on casual basis is nothing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of Section 25-T of the ID A,ct. 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, lt hich, in our considered view does not warrant irrterference in these appeals."

21. fhe Division Bench of this Court in its Judoment .P.No.27 217 ol ot7 7-7 oa 19-(t9_ 29 SNJ W.P.No.657 012021 18 observed as under:- '16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Coutt is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in tJma 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 regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one- time absorption/regularization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of L994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.!994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in tJma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regularization/absorption exist. No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (suora).

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2OL7, in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ petition is allowed 30 SN,J W.P.No-657 of 2021

22. "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) )'ears of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their f, vour from 1990 till date. se_rylccs,

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respondent reiecting 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 InCia; "-l 31 sN,J W.P.No.657 ot2O2l within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order."

23. This Court ooines that in the present case, the respondents , failed to discharge their dutv in examininq the request of the Detitioner for reoularization of petitioner's services- who is workino as full time sweeper and further to consider his request to treat the temporarv service of the oetitioner in the last qrade oost of full time sweeoer as reqular one for all purOoses bv qrantino last orade oav with periodical increment revised from time to time from the clate of aooointment of the petitioner, in accordance to law.

24. consicleration of oetitioner's case for qrant of the relief as prayed for in the present writ Petition in view of the observations of the Aoex Court in various igdoments (referred to and extracted abover and the view of the Divisaon Bench of this Court in the Judoments referred to and extracted above' )L sN,J W.P.No.657 of 2021

25. Takino into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) 'fhe submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3. c) The observations of the Apex Coutt in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: ix2o2o) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) leeo(2) scc Pase 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1209 (v) (2(J17) 1 Scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) ScC 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (201s) I scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2(J24 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O!1(1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 f t. 33 SN,J W.P.No.657 oI2O2l d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated

10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O and 854 of 2OL2 while uploading the Judgment dated O8.O9.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated

19.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.272l7 of 2Ol7 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in f.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2}tg and W.P.No.23O57 ol 2019 (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. dn4 34 SNJ W.P.No.6S7 of 2021 of the oetitioner in the last orade oost of Sweeoer as r.arrrrllr rtt.la r , rrrrrriateac hrr ara nt inrr lrci rrrada pay_lCith periodical in time from the date of appointment of the Detitioner rnd .all aan niirl harrafilc efr rlrr ana !aci n ..rl +ha relevant documents in suooort of oetitaoner's case as DuElorth in the Dresent wrat Detition, within a Deriod of one (O1) week from the date of receiot of coov of the order and the resoondents shall examine and consider the same an accordance to law. in conformiw with DrinciDles of natural iustice bv Drovidino an opportunitv of oersonal hearinq to the petitioner, an terms of orders oassed bv the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case reDorted an 2006(4) SCC Paoe 1. the iudqment passed in W.P.No.24377 oJ 2OO7 dated O8.O9.2O1O reDofted in 20 11 (1) ALD. Paoe 234 and as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 1O.O6.2O13, and also as oer Division Bench Judoment of this Court dated 19.O9.2O17 oassed in W.P.No.27217 of 2OO7 reoorted in 2O18(2)ALD oaoe 2 d also the Divis nch Judqment of this 35 SNJ W.P.No.657 ol2O2l coult dated 21.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.NoS.1 Of 2o2o in 1(,f 2019 in w.P.No.23057 (,f 2019 reDorted in 2O2O(4)ALD paoe 379 which had attained finality- within a oeriod of four (o4) weeks from the date of receiot of a coov of this orclerr clulv takinq into consicleration the observations ancl the law laid clown by the Apex court in the various iudoments (referred to and extracted abovel, and in Dalticular, Dara No.53 of the iudoment of the Apex court in t re case of state of Karnataka v. llma Devi and dulv communacate the decision to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT SE FFICER one fair copy to THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA (For Her LordshiP's Kind Perusal) To, Affairs, New Delhi. Buildings, HYderabad

1. 11 L.R. CoPies. ,. ffrJ UnOer Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company 3. The Secretary,"'Telangana Advocates Association Library, High court 4. Tilpr"i#ipiise"retary, Panc.haya Raj and Rural Employment Department' 5. i6f dirtri"i Coliiioi(pdncr,ryati) and Chairman of Selection Committee, 6. fG Chie"f Executive Officer,ZillaPrala Parishad, Karimnagar,. 1. On" CC to SRl. CH GANESH, Advocate [OP^UC] - t!: i*o ccd to oFFon'SenVrbes rt, Hijh court for the State of relansana, e s. o;;'cc to SRi. prinorrp REDDY KATTA, sc [oPUC] Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. Karimnagar District, Karimnagar. - at HYderabad [OUT] -, ..- .

10.Two CD CoPies BM HIGH COURT DATED:1011112025 ORDER WP.No.657 of 2021 I ) IHE s () * 1 2 ttt,q fi?6 ;a FATC * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WTHOUT COSTS