Banoth Shankar. S/o Balaii v. unfair as per Article 14

Order

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

2. The petitioner approached the Court seekinq Draver as under: "...to direct the respondents to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in the last grade post for continuously working till date in temporary post of last grade in contingent establishment on compassionate grounds from 20-11-2001 nor regularizing his services even on completion of 20 long years service by not extending the last grade pay benefits with periodical increments from time to time with effect from 20-11- 2001 to till date From time to time with arrears as per GO Ms.No.6B7 dated 03-10-1977 to till date is highly unjust and unfair as per Article L4, L6,2l,39 (d),43 and 300 (A) of Constitution of India by subjecting petitioner for exploitative enslavement due to his helpless conditions of poverty, poor social, economical and political background by taking it as advantage by the respondents in continuing her on pittance wages of Rs.1623/-p.m. and prays to direct the respondent herein to treat the temporary services oF petitioner in the last .l SN.J rvp 26ll(, 2022 grade post of sweeper as regular one for all granting last grade pay with periodical incr€,r from time to time from the date of appoir 1 petitioner for working 20 long years withoL t progress with 100 o/o comp€flSdtion on arret per the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supr: C.A. No. 3416 - 3445 of 2010 dated 19-0.t case of Union of India Vs. Avtar Chand (2C 32) and in the case of Prem Singh Vs. Stat Batch cases (reported in 2019 10 SCC 51(t and 37), in the case of Netram Sahu \ Chattisgarh and Anr. in Civil Appeal No.1Z dated 23-03-2018, followed by DB Orders i case oF Kadar Basha in WP No. 26788 of 2C_ 08-2017 (DB) with cost by applying afore j laid by the Honble Apex Court under Articl( Constitution and pass..... " curposes by lent revised Tent of the ,l ny service rs of pay as I)e Court in .1019 in the 93ALDSC r of UP and in paras 36 s. State oF i4 of 2018, isued in the j'dated 10- r d principle 141 of our tr, :half f the

3. Learned counsel aDpearinq on petitio affidav Derta i ntnq in particular olacinq reliance on the avermenl made in the led in support of the resent writ oetition to the services rendered bv oetitioner with the resDondents herein for mo re than a decade contends that the petitioner is err itled for the relief as Draved for in the oresent writ petiti ! [.. PE RUSED TH E RECORD:- DISC USSION A D CONCLU SION:-

4. Learned counsel aDDeannq on hr half f the Detitio er submitsth t the su biect rssue ir the Dr T I ) S N-J !\'p 16l l6 1021 case ls squarel Y Covered bv the order of this Cou rt, dated .o9 N W.P .24377 2 7re

20LL(1) ALD, Paqe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2010 . dated 1 .06.2013 and also order. dated 19.O9.2017 Dassed in W.P.N o.272L7 ot 2 17 reDo rted in o18 (2) ALD Paqe 282 and al so the order, dated 2L.O4.2O2O oassed in w.P No.23O57of20 9 reDo ed in 2O 20(4) A LD Paqe 379

5. Learne sta ndinq cou nse! aooearlnq on behalf of the N 4s mits flevan ut-fo in t r sent rit Pe n had part of resDon been ad d ressed to the resoondents herer n s on date and efore, t e oetiti ner can of com lain inaction on the dents hereln ln con siderin o the qrievance of oetition r and hence, the relief s Draved for bv the the Dr sent Wit oetitio canno be qra ted ioner In no Mand amus ca n be issued aqain st the resoon d en ts Deti n f directe dtoDu t-forth the oetitioner's qri vance as Dut- forth in the oresent Writ P tition bv wav of a detailed and uDOn entatio n to the resDonde nts herein aoner ma reDr receipt presentation, th e resoo ndents would r 6 SN,J \rp 26 l6 2022 consider the same in accordance to lil v, within a reasonable period.

6. Learned counsel appearinq on behalf of lhe Detitioner does not disoute the said submission made 1 y the learned standinq counsel appearanq on behalf of th: resDondent No.4

7. The Apex Court in the iudqment reoortr I in (202O) 1 SCC (L&S) in Prem Sinqh v State of Uttar Pradesh and others. at Dara3 6 held as under: "36. There are some of the employees who h;,e: not been regularized in spite of having rendered the serv ces for 30- 40 or more years whereas they have been sup rannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged est rblishment, not against any particular project, their servi I r:; ought to have been regularized under the Government nstructions and even as per the decision of this Court n State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Coun 1n the said decision has laid down that in case servicer; have been rendered for more than ten years without the , over of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the e:rvices be regularized of such employees. In the facts ( f the case, those employees who have worked for ten yr: r s or more should have been regularized. It would not l l proper to regulate them for consideration of regularizat c r as others have been regularized, we direct that the r ;ervices be treated as a regular one. However, it is ma,l r clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues,f difference in wages had they been continued in servi, e: regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. -'l t:y shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they li ve retired from the reqular establishment and t 1t servrces rendered bv them r ioht from the dav tlr )v en ;11: , 7 SN.J \vD_261 16 2022 ll be r ed est bti h h o ua lifvino service for ouroose of pension." k- n

8. The ADex Court in the case of Dha rwad District PWD Literate Dailv Waqe Emolovees Association Vs. State of Karnataka reDorted in 1990(2) SCC Paoe 39 6 laid orinciole that the State should not keeo a Derson in temDorarv or adhoc service for lonq Deriod and have to treat such persons as reqular one.

9. Para No.53 of the of the iudqment of the Apex Court in the State of Karnataka and others Vs, Um adevi, dated 1O.O4.2006 reported in (2OO6) 4 SCC 1 is extracted hereu nd er: - 7 4 2 5 s D "53. One a ect needs to be clarified. here mav be cases where irreqular aDpointments (not illeqal aDDointments) as exolai ed in S.V. Naravanaooa L 1 1 scR 128 R.N. N n and B.N. Na ara n n 1 7 and referred to in Dara 15 above, of dulv qualified Dersons in dulv sanctione vacant Dosts miqht have been made and the em Dlovees have continued to work for ten ears or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The ouestion of reqularization of the services of such emolovees 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 liqht of this iudqment, In that context the Union of India, the State Governments and their i nstru menta I ities r 8 SN.J \\.p_261t6 2022 r z ch aruld f2 ke ste stor !; a one-time measure, the services of such irrequla lv aooointed, l who have worked for ten vears or nore an dulv sanctioned Do sts but not under cover o orders of the courts or of tribunals and should fu rth e r ensure that recruitments are u ndertaken to fill reoular th ose va ca nt sanctioned Dosts tha reouire tr be filled uo, rn cases where temDorarv e olovees o r dailv waqers are beino now emoloved. The orocess l rust be set in motion within six months from this dat I

10. The iudo ment of the Aoex ourt date( 2O.L2.2O24, reoorted i 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 in Jar oAn a and I s v. Union of I ia and othe n the relevant DaraqraDh Nos.12, 13 24, 26, 27 and 28 , rre extracted hereunder: "12. Despite being labelled as "pa r workers," the appellants performed essential tasks on a daily and conti basis over extensive periods, ranginr; over a decade to nearly two decades. engagement was not sporadic or tem! in nature, instead, it was recurrent, r,: and akin to the responsibilities ty I associated with sanctioned posts. Mol., the respondents did not engage any personnel for these tasks durin,S appellants tenure, underscoring indispensable nature of their work. :-time Thei r ora ry J ula r, ,ically )over, se were not reoular Dost The claim bv the respondenl lacks mr

13. the nature of the work oerformed aooellant was Derennial and fundame the functionino of the offices. The nature of these duties necessitates ; _ that ) 'it, as 21 the I tal to r(]( Ltrnng 1 -7 9 SN.J w? 26116 2021 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 the same beneFits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice 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 label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It hiqhliqhts the iudiciarv's role in rectifvinq such misclassifications and ensurinq that workers receive fair treatment,

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" l0 SN,J \\p 26116 2022 "irregular" appoin, rents It cateooricallv held that emolove r, rs rn irreoular aooointm nts, who were enoE r.'] red in dulv sa ctioned Dosts and s erved continuouslv fo more than ten vears S hould r be considered for reqularization as it one- time measure. However, the laudable ir t 3nt of the judgment is being subverted when insti Lrtion s rely on its dicta to indiscriminately rej,l 1: the claims oF employees. even in cases whe|t ' lack appointments are not illegal, but merel' adherence to procedural formalities. Gov€ departments often cite the judgment in Unr r Devi (supra) to argue that no vested ri l rt to regularization exists for temporary emp I )yees, judgment's ( overlooking the xplicit acknowledgment of cases where regulariz r .ion is a ppropriate . Thi s selective aDDlication d ;torts l the udo m nt's soirit and ur se. eJIe !ivelv ( weaoonizino it aoainst emDlovees wh, l _have rendered in d s Densable services decades. Do e D I r

27. In light of these considerations, opinion, it is imperative for gover departments to lead by example in providi and stable employment. Engaging workers temporary basis for extended periods, esp when their roles are integral to the organiz functioning, not only contravenes intenl labour standards but also exposes the orgall to legal challenges and undermines emg morale. By ensuring fair emplc r practices, government institutions reduce the burden of unnecessary litir; promote job security, and uphol,j prancaples of justice and fairness thal are meant to embody. This approach with international standards and !;r positive precedent for the private ser: follow, thereby contributing to the ,l betterment of labour practices in the cor n our 1m ent rr7 fair on a 3cia lly ):io n's rtional zation ltion, r lig ns rts a or to rerall rntry. r / SN,J \tp 26116 2022

28. Iri 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 oriqinal application is allowed to the following exte n t: i. The termination orders dated 27 .70.2O lB are quashed ; . Th ea DDellants shall be taken on dutv forthwith and their ort hwi h. red ularise d se rvrces However, the aooellants shall not be t f e o benefits / back wa es for the oeriod thev have not worked for but would be entitled to continuitv of services for the sai d Deriod and the same would be counted for their Dost- retiral benefits."

11. The -Iudoment of the A Dex Court dated 31.O1.2025 *SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v. reoorted in 2O25 INSC 144 i NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZ IABAD", in oarticular, the relevant para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder: r It is manifest that the Aooellant Workmen ^ 15. continuouslv rendered their services over several eca de. Even if certain muste rolls were not p!1o(Luced in full, the Emolover's failuret o furnish such records- e nder well-establi r i nference 1l w v r s T t2 SN,] \\p,76t 16 2022 I iurisprudence. Indian labour law strc r r d isfavo r Deroetual dailv-wa qe or contractual e n oaoe ments in circumstances where the work is manent in nature. Morallv and leqallv, work€rr s who fulfil reo ulremen ts ve r after year on o otn o m U nt c DA cannot be dismissed summarilv a!i disoe sa ble, fa enuire contractor a rticu la rl aqreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinit ) "temporary" employment practices as done by a recen judgement oF this court in Jaggo v. Union of India ir the following pa ragra phs: in th n "22. The pervasive misuse of tempora'y employment contracts, as exemplified in this r: r:;e, reflects a broader systemic issue that acr e:rsely affects workers' rights and job security. n the private sector, the rise of the gig econom\/ has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of beneft;, job security, and fair treatment. Such practi( ( s, have been criticized For exploiting workers a I J undermining Iabour standards. Government institl lions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairrt s;s and justice, bear an even greater responsibilit) t.o avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse cf temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the det imental trends observed in the gig economy bu also sets a concerning precedent that can erode p ublic trust in governmental operations.

25. It is a disconcerting reality t tat temporary employees, particularly in governm€.tt institutions, often face multifaceted forms of ext oitation. While the foundational purpose of temporar 1 contracts may have been to address short-term or : easonal needs, ry/' 13 SN,J vip )61 16 2022 they have increasingly become a mechanism lo 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: . Misuse of "Temoorarv" Labels: E olovees enqaqed for work that is essential, r cu rfl no, and inteo ra! to the functionino of an in itution labelled as "temoora rv" or are often "co ntractua 1," even when their roles mirror emolovees. Such m isclassif ication deorives workers of the dionitv, securitv, and benefits that reoular rf rmtn ntitled m lo ee reqular adenti ca 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 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 Shieid: 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 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 \ SN,J \!p- 261 l6 2022 decades. This lack of social securit) subjects them and their families to undue hardslr t, especially in cases of illness, retirement, )r unforeseen circu msta nces. "

16. The High Court did acknowledgo inability to justify these abrupt terminatior r it ordered re-engagement on daily w;r, measure of parity in minimum pay. Regr,: perpetuated precariousness: the Appella n : left in a marginally improved yet still ir While the High Court recognized the imlr work and hinted at eventual regularizati afford them continuity of service or meanirl commensurate with the degree of stir evident on record. :ee Employer's . Consequently, (-.s with some tably, this only Workmen were r,:ertain sta tu s. )rtance of their rn, it failed to lful back wages utory violation a I ( he Employer's ren stands in ples. Once it is rinated r,vithout L7. In light of these considerations, discontinuation of the Appellant Work violation of the most basic labour law prin established that their services were ter adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of tht l_J.P. Ind ustria I n a ed in Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev we esse ntial oerennial duties. hese wor I els_ean!!ot_bC to oeroetual unc rtaintv. \ releoated hflc-lerecrrE I of municipal budqet and corr t_.1 rliance with recru itm e nt rU les merit con sid atio n. ;uch concerns do not absolve the Emolover of statut c ry obliqations Indeed bureaucratic limitations can not trumD - -hc-lesitlnstc lpttia r ts, crrr riteh le ne ate eI I #ili&i-r-?ild v 15 SN,J \vp 26t16 2022 rlo htsof workmen who have served continuouslv in de facto re ular roles for an exten ded period. o h C 1 a The tmrtuon ed order of the Hi rt- to the nt f harr confine the A rtellant Workmen in fr rfr r rp u ity or ith the dailv-waqe enqaqement without c meaninqful back wa qes, is herebv set followino d i rections: 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 posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire oeriod of a sence (from the date of termination until actual reanstatement) shall be counted for continuitv of service and all ts such as senioritv and con seo u e ntia I ben elioi bilitv for Dromotions, if anv. III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50c/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 relnstatement. ]) over is directed to IV. The ResDo ndent E initiate a fair and tra nsDarent Drocess for r t6 SN.J !\,p 26t 16-2022 !. t ,l I n e e In f lzt assessinq 'azatio n, I ef ct ha the re ul orl nenwi hin tx months from the dateo f rein atement, dulv o nsideri rfor ed Deren nial munici DAtd uties a kir rm en p ts. re ulr sha ll not Em Dlover onal or t to th AI tr Ia rlv sit at fo the exte t st. cte for su hdu ies exi i l I ! I reo utrements w re lan Work en A ar m lo e an lo edv ca r t d e d e ite lln ar ad tn! th se on tim e en u lndefin itelvretain edon dailv wa( statu orv and eq ita le no rms, molover shall :ive orocesses or to e rmDOSe a contra rv to ee ar a r ar rl ed ! I UI _rs n l..l

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. h x u u rem c vs Jaqiit sinqh and others atParas 54 and i 48 n a n re rt(:, I in( 20L71 1 of Pun b and others 1 of th sai n a l nder: -conctudid, b "54 "The Futt Bench of the High Court, v,t ite adjudicating upon the above controver:y h?d itlut te_porury employees were not entitled to tne miniiiiZt iJ ,ugrtu, puy_ scale, merely for the reason, that the urtinifi,, iarried on by l1:!.y:.y:y"* a,nd regutar emptoyees were siiiklr r*he rutt bench noweverl made two exceDtions. Temporary "i, ,,|"ur, wno fett in either of the two exceotions, were hetd entrl zd to wages at t!::,::!:* of the.pay-scatg !.r1wn W ,Zs;;', i,itproyees. rne exc.epttons .recorded by the full bench of ;he hi ,t1,Court ;n the tmpugned judgment are extracted hereunder:_ I -/ SN,J \!,0 261 l6 2022 "(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 oppoftunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2) But if dailv waoe ad hoc or contractual aDDointees are not aDpointed asainst reqular sanctioned Dosts and their services are availed continu Stafe Government or its instru mentalities for a sufficient lgnq period i.e. for 70 vears, such dailv waqers, ad hoc or contractual aoDointees shall be entitled to minimum of the reqular Dav scale without anv allowances on the assumDtion that work of perennial nature is available and havinq worked for <rteh lana nariad i< created in such category of persons. Their claim for reoularization, if anv, ma y have to be considered separatelv in terms of lesallv permissible scheme, tir',F an anttitahla r\f w I (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 daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months."

13. The iudqment of the Aoex Court reported in 2O1O(9) SCC 247 between: State of Karnataka and others v M.L.Kesari and others, in particular, paras 4 to 9 reads as u nder:

4. The decision in State of Karnataka v, Umadevi was rendered on 10.4.2006 (reoorted in 2006 G) SCC 1). 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 permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, L { I '1&# 18 SN.J wp 26116,2022 regularizationr or permanent continuance unless had been done in a regular manner, in constitutional scheme; and that the courts mLs ensuring that they do not interfere unduly witl arrangement of its affairs by the State or its in nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilita:l of the constitutional and statutory mandates. Tt) held that a temporary, contractual, casual ( t employee does not have a legal right to be nl unless he had been appointed in terms of the rel= adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the ConstitLl however made one exception to the above pc same is extracted below : t.e recruitment \erms of the ' be careful in the economic trumentalities, the bypassing ; Court fu rther a daily-wage 'de permanent rant rules or in on. This Court tition and the I I 1, a s have rvention "53. One asaect needs to be clarified. lbcreaay-bc (not illesal cases where irreoular ao intments in S.V. _ Narayanaooa aDDointm errts) as exDlain , ra [7972 (1) 7967 7 R.Ar. scc 4091 and B.N. Nao,arai.an 17979 '4) SCc soTl and referred to in para 75 above, of: lulv oualified oersons in dulv sanctioned vacant po:;_ s mioht have been ma e and the emolo ued to work for ten vears or more but without the ,t of tribunals. of th tion of tlt t services of to be c tnsidered on tttled by this d-!n-tbe-Ish! he Union The ouestion of reoula such em lovees mav ha merits in the liqht of the orincioles :;1 Court in he cases abovereferred to a r of th,s udoment. In that context. the State Go India, i n stru menta I ities shou Ld take steps f() reau la tze as a one-time measure, the services of si! h rre ularl aooointed. who have worked for ten t eA1s__AL_m.a.te in dulv sanctioned oosts but not u rt ler cover of orders of the courts or o tribuna rc _and should further ensure that reoular recr L Ltt!1cats---are ( tioned Dosts that require to be filled uD, tn -ielEes__whcre or dailv Waql temDorarv emDlo z_'s are beinq now emDlo ved. The Drocess must be .et in n withi six months from this rnments _ - and 'aken te..... T "5. It is evident from the above that there to the general principles against 'regularizatiort Umadevi, if the following conditions are futfitted : ; an exception enunciated in ./ 19 SN,J . p 26t t6,2022 (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 tribunat. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have emptoyed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegat, 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 qualifjcations 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 Governm nt or insttumentalitv. to take ar.T the concerned steDs to a had serued for more than ten vears rotection of I courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Uma devi, directed that guch one-time measure must be set in motion within six m onths from the date of its decision (rendered o 70.4.2006). ularize th emDloyees w hout the ben rim orders

6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality 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 intervention 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 services.

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casua I employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one- time regularization process, On the other hand, some Government departments or instru menta 1ities undertook the I ._ 20 SN,J rvp 26116 2022 one-time exercise excluding several et consideration either on the ground that their cz,: in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such cit employees who were entitled to be considerecl 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose considered for regularization, merely becats exercise was completed without considerine because the six month period mentioned in pe r has expired. The one-time exercise should t.t wage/adhoc/those employees who had put continuous service as on 10.4.2006 with: protection of any interim orders of courts ol employer had held the one-time exercise in ter Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of sonl were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umattr concerned should consider their cases also, as the one-time exercise. The one time exercise only when all the employees who are entitlea in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so consider tployees from e,s were pending aumstances, the ;n terms of Para heir right to be = the one-time their cases, or t 53 of Umadevi nsider all daily- ;n 10 years of tt availing the lribunals. If any ns of para 5j of , employees who t,i, the employer t continuation of t,ill be concluded 'o be considered :d, I

8. The obiect behind the said direatiah _ in oara 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure that those who have out in more than ten years of cott: ,Jlu.ogq_EeIvlce without the protection of any interim orc\ rs of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision i4 Umadevi was rendered, are considered for reoularizat_ on in view of their lonq service. Second ,s to en: ure that the deDa rtments / instru mentalities do not erDetuate the practice of emolovinq Dersons on lailv-wase/ad- boeleasua! for lonq periods and th 7 n oeriodicallv reqularize them on the qround that thev I ave served for more than ten vears, therebv defeatino tlt_t constitutional or statqtolv provisions relatinq to r=:ruitment and apoointment. The true effect of the direltion is that all oersons who have worked for more than ien vears as on 70.4.2006 (the date of decision in Umad' 2_ /i) without the orotection of anv interim order of anv coult_ or tribunal. ,n ite t alification, are enti ed to be considered for reoularizatio, t. The fact that the emplover has not undertaken su < h exercise of reoularization within six months of l e decision in Umadevi or tha t such exercise was una'< rtaken onlv in itle such reoard to a limited few, will not emolovees, the ridh to be considered fctt reqularization ossessrn , 'I a w 21 SN.J wp 26116 2022 in terms of the above direct ions in Umadevi as a one-time measure.

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 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 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 7 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 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 regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. L4. In the iudoment of the Aoex Court in Nihal Sinoh and others v. State ofP untab reported in (2013) 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 avaalable. It held that the mere fact r 22 that wages were paid by the Bank did r I appellants 'employees' of those Banllr appointment was made by the State art control vested with the State. It held that tft, cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadrt exclusively within the authority of the Sta State did not choose to create a cadre but ( appointments of persons creating relationship, its action is arbitrary. It a.l SN,J wp 2{tl 16 2022 rt render the r since the I disciplinary : creation of a is a matter te, but if the hose to make contractua I o refused to accept the defence that there were no sal gtiSn-ei-J2osts and so there was iustification for the S! ate-le-utllisc TTE()D e like the appellants for services of Ia roe numbe ro f decades. It held that "sanctioned Dosts d, not fall from heaven" and that the State has to c rea e them by a l I conscious choice on the bas is of some ratio 1 rl assessment of need. Referrinq to Umadevi. it held that he appella nts before them were not arbitrarilv chose 1 . their initial apDointment was not an 'irreqular' aDDoinl:r nent as it had been made in accordance with the statu't lry Drocedure prescribed under the Police Act, 1861, a nd the State ca nn tre h eard to av that thev are not _ entitled to be 23 SN,J \.\p_26t t6 2022 absorbed into the services of the State on Dermanent basis as. accordinq to it, therr aDDo intments were purelv tem Dora r and not aoainst anv sanctioned Dosts created bv the State. It was held that the iudqment in Um adeva cannot become a licence for exoloitation bv the State and its instrumentalities and neither the covernment of Puniab nor those public sector Banks can continue such a oractice incon sistent with their obliqation to function in accordance with the Con n,

15. The iudqment of the pex Court report 2015 SCC Online SC 1797 between B.Srinivasulu and others v Nellore Munic oal Corooration Reo. bV its Commissioner. Nellore District, Andhra Pra esh and others, in Darticular DarasTandSreads as under: a We find it difficult to acceDt the reasonino doDted by the (7) Hiqh Court The riqht of the aooellants to seek reqularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994 The aooellant have been in service of the first resDondent not onlv Drio r to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subseouent to the issue of The respondent Municipality being a statutory G.O 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. B. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the I I \-- Z4 SN,J wp_26116 2022 circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifylr,t appeal by directing that the appellants' servi: with effect from the date of their completin continuous service as was laid down by thi:; Collector/Cha irperson & Others vs. M.L. Sinqn scc 480. the order under ::; be regularised I their five year Court in District & Ors. 2009 (8)

16. In Amarkan R IV c rted (2O15 )8 SCC 265, the Suoreme Court held that 'Ihe objective f Bih rr behind the exception carved out in this cas(: was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are arregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointmer ts, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensurl L securitv of emplovment of those persons who had serv he State Government and their instrumentalities for nore than ten vears". In that case, emplovee was workir[ L for 29 vea rs. This dectston a DDroves earlier view _:_xpressed in M. L.Kesari extracted above. L7. In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Pras I I reported in (20L4) 7 SCC 223. samilar view was 'aken bv the Suo reme Court and it was held as follows : "47..,. In view of t e cateoorical findinr t -al-!ast--en-!he relevant contentious issue that the resoott lent emplovees have continued in their servi for mor= than 70 vears al orincio I t laid down bv continuouslv therefore. the this Court in Umadevi case ( te of Karn taka v Umadevi (2OO6) 4 SCC 7 : 2OO6 SCc (L&S) 731 at o_ tra 53 squarelv es. The Divisic n Bench of the aDDlies to the Dresent cas a 25 SN'--J wp 261t6._2022 Hioh Court has riohtlv em Dlo vees are entit ed for t e relie the interfered with bv this Court." eld that the resDondent same cannot he I,

18. The Judgment of this Court dated 06.t2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.27602 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.O8.2024 in SLP No.32847 ot 2O24.

19. The iudqment of the ADex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others reDorted in AIR 2O2O Suoreme Court 3959 and in particular Dara 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 dutv-bound to exercise such ower wher has failed to exercise or has wronqlv exercised discretion conferred upon it bv a statute, or a rule, or ment or has exercised a oolicv decision of the Go fide, or on irrelevant such discretion mala consid ration. the Government or a ubli h rt a l I l l . j 26 SN.J wP _26116 2022

101. In all such cases, the High Court musl lssue a writ of mandamus and glve directions to compel terformance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public uthority.,,

20. The Divis ion Ben ch of this Court in ts .Iudqment dated 10.06.2O13 oas sed in W.A .Nos.782 of !O O and 854 of 2012 whil e uoholdi nq the l udqmen dat,: I 8.O 2 10 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.t! t 4g_gl2oeg observed as u nder; - 1 "Further, it is manifest from the material on services of the similarly placed persons who apt Courts were regularized. The a ppella nt-Corporz various office orders/circu la rs dated 20.12.1.!rl 06.10.2OO7 and latest being 4.7.2OO9 for r casual/contract employees, It is also to be seer T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice t or workman. As can be seen from the factua cases on hand, engaging the respondents fo. ! continuous period of time on casual basis is n: Iabour practice attracting the provisions of Se,:, ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying r of the Apex Court, rightly held that the responrlr to regularization as directed in the impugne(l learned single Judge considered all the aspects detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our does not warrant interference in these appeals., -3cord that the 'oached the law .ion a lso issued lt, lt.o9.7992, rrl u la rizatio n of hat Section 25- y any employer scenario of the uch a long and .hing but unfair ion 25-T of the n the decisions rrts are e ntitled r>rders, as the )1'the matter in ronsidered view 2L, ThE Divisio n Benc of this Courtin dated 19 .o9.2017 oassed in W.P.N 0.272'. ,7 of 2017 ! and para lg Jud I observed as under:- 27 SN,J !vP_261 l6 2022 "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 regularizatron 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 bso rption/reg u la rization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. 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, daled 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 riza tio n/a bsorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 1OO and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.t994 don ot whittle dorarn the r ridth and the iudqment in Manjula Bashini's case (suora), does not lrrr +lra I^r^r6i +ha + r i or-f o Suoreme Court in Para 53 of its iudoment ln Uma Devi's case (s u ra) therefo e not ncrmiqsihle for the r resDondents to take shelter under Act 2 of L994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, to denv reoularization to t h Devi's case (suora ). wn in Para No.53 of the of the directions n r who have adm il-ta/lrr It is c-ficfi6.l <rrad s r D i

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.20L7, in OA No.1442 of 2074 , on the file oF the Tribunal is set aside and the writ Detition is allowed with the direction to the resDondents to consider req la risation of the services of r a ainst the exi t n hem sub ect to thei the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the I U doment in Uma Devi's case (suDra). Thi Drocess must be comoleted within two months from the date of receiot of a coov of this order."

22. Division Bench of this Court in i n dated 2L.O4.2O2O Dassed in LA.Nos.1 of ZO2O in 1 of 2O19 28 ttp 26116 SN.J -2022 and W.P.No.23057 of 2O19 reported in 2O O(4)ALD Daqe 379 at oaras 45. 48 and oa ra 50 observed a! -u-n-de[:- "45. There is no dispute that petitioners havc Lreen working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in alrr( st (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimL r I time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuouslT ,nrorking without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till ( ate. 48. It is not known whv th lst resE ( ndent as not ;5e (supra), as explained in M.L. Kesari's case (supra) af d undertaken a one-time exercise of DreDari o the lisl - -sI--daily--]^,asc emDlovees who had worked for more tha ten (1 ) vears r without the interventi on of the Co rts an( ! Tribunals as on 10.4.2005 and subiect them to a orocess y lrification as to thev are workino aoainst va ( ant posts and whether oossess requisite qualifications for the i2 2sts, and if so, reoulariz e their servrces. Uma D vi'

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowe < ; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st rer rondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of iervices on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrar) and violative of Articles L4, 16 and 21 of the Constitutio of India; the resoonde ts are directed to reoularize or one-time basis I J the petitioners y ages from the *'v shall not be (erctse shall be ceiDt of comD lete 10 vears of service on da ilv initial dates of the ir aooointment . But, t entitled toI anv monetarv relief. The said r done within two (2) weeks f m the d:ri e of re cooy of the order." ' servi the d h

23. This Cou rt o D INes thatinth ED e! ;( !nt case, the resDondents failed to discharoe their dut\/ i_Elxa!xI!!ng the reouest of r rec rla rizataon of petition er's services, who is wo rkinq as full time sweeDer the Detitioner r 1l an d J rther to consider his reo uest to treat he tem DOra rv 7 ..,,, 29 SN,J wp 26IL6_2022 servt ceof the D t oner rn t rad e ost of full ttme D o swee nerasr ular one for all urooses trv orantino last D qrade Dav with Deriodical increment revised from time to e om the date of a ointment of the t: n r accordance to law.

24. This Court ooines that oetitioner is entitled for consideration of Detition er s case for qrant of the relief as r ln of the observations of the Aoex Court in various iudoments t h f t r and ex ra dab v nd th vtew t h Division Bench of this Court in the Judqments referred to and extracted above.

25. Takinq into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: i i0 SN.J Np 26116 2022 i)(2o20) l scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 2O1O(9) SCC247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (2O1s) I SCC 26s (x) (2oL4) 7 Scc223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2O24 (xii) AIR 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 Court dated

10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2Ol. ) and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment datr: I 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.f o.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated L9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 of 29'. I (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in . of 2O19 and W.P.No.23057 ot 2OL9 (referred to and extre cted above). I II 3l SN,J \\p 26t t6 2022 g) In the light of discussion and conctusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order. The Wri P ition ts llo ed d -fo im of eti ron r ts titio erf r r ula iza nof 10n s s th claim eti oner to er in the I st m a fSw e r r one or all ur f ntan tn reme nts revrsed fro ith efl dical time to time from the date of a AD oantment of etiti ner and all nseouen ial benefits dulv enclosinq all the relevant documents tn su DOrtofo etitioner's case asD ut-forth in the Dresent h date of receipt of coov of the order and the reso ond ents sh lex mtn fo e o1 we kfr eti on con der he a me na ord ral usti law ln f vidin n r rtun i son I heari b s or ers titio er rti Um Dev 'sc er orte in2 6 4 sed nW ud me 4377 of or ed n2 11 1 ALD Pa 2 10 P.N b c h I ccP 1 2007 234 and i I I i2. SN.J \\p 20lr6 2022 \ confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 1O O6.2O13, and a lso as Der Division Benc h Jud ment of thi ; Court dated

19.O9.2 O17 oassed in W.P.No. 27217 of 2O,l 7 reported in 2018(2)ALD Daoe 282 and also the D i ri Be nch this Court dated 2L.O4.20 2 O passed in Judqment of I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 in W.P.No.ll lO57 of 2O19 reoorted in 2O2O( 4 ALD oaqe 379 which d attained ) tna li within od of four 4 w the date recer Dt of a coov of this order, dul t- consideration the observations and the larar laid down by racted above the Aoex Court in the various iudoments (rg Ierred to and No.53 of the iudqment of the ADex Court in the cas of State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi decision to the petitioner. However, and dulv conrr 0.s-[.!-ce!e__the ther E shall be no a rti r order as to costs, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendin(l in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. ,.C.SULEKHA DEVI .*-*-.. fR$r ;r4rylBEqs.rRA"R { \t .=.r,o* oFFrcER ttder nUtNANDA One fair copy to THE HON,BLE MRS. JUSTICE S (For Her Lordship,s Kind perusal) To, 'l . 1'1 L R. Copies. 2. The Under Secretary, Union of rndia, Ministry of Law J rstice and company Affairs, New Delhi. !

3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad T.S.,Hyderabad. Telangana, Telangana Secretariat, T S,Hyderabad.

4. The Principal Secretary, Panchayathraj Department, Telangana Secretariat, 5. The Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Govt- of 6. The District Collector (Panchayat), and Chairman of Minimum Wages Committee and District Selection Committee, Suryapet District. 7. The Chief Executive Oflicer, Zllla Praja Parishad, Suryapet District 8. The Mandal Development Officer, Mandal Praja Parishad, tvlelia Cheruvu 9. One CC to SRl. CH. GANESH, Advocate [OPUC] 10.Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I ,High Court for the State of Telangana at 11.O'ne CC to-SRl. PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, SC FOR ZPP AND MPP tvlandal, SuryaPet District. Hyderabad [OUTI loPUCl

12. Two CD CoPies BIV I HIGH COURT DATED:0410812025 ORDER WP.No.26116 ot 2022 ----- (\ i]\, .a lrl \ I s'co \ f) 0 "? 6Irl * &:(irr l'c * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHI )UT COSTS $r \,L \.l'