The High Court · 2025

Order

ITIO No 26445 o 2022 N F Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, tearned 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 Planning, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 and Sri. Katta Pradeep Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TG ZPP MPP GPPS, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5.

2. The oetiti oner ADD ache.l the urt seekino D raver as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner nor granting last grade time scale benefits to petitioner even after working on full time basis from 33 long years in the contingent post without any service progress by paying pittance wage of Rs. 4000/- per month by denying him to pay legitimate or living wages in violation of provisions of Minimum Wages Act, L948, Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and Article L4, L6,2L,39 (d), 43, ) -t 4 SN, J wp 26485_2022 300 (A) of our Constitution and not implenr )nting Govt. Orders issued in GO Ms. No. 193 GAD, date(J 14_03_1990 and subsequent Govt. Orders by the resp: rdent Chief Executive Officers as unjust, unfair, totalll, illegal and u nconstitution a I by subjecting the petitioner for exploitative enslavement due to his helplessness conditions of poverty, poor social, economical political background b1, taking it as advantage by the respondents and prays tr direct the respondents herein to treat the services of the g etitioner as regular one in last grade post from the d. I : of initial appointment by applying the decision and princ ple laid by the Honble Apex Court in the case of prem Singlr Vs State of U.P. (2019 (1) SCC 516) and Division Bench of his Honbte Court in Wp No. 33936 of 2011 and Batch Case r: dated 02_ 05-2018 (2020 (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) foilowed b,, decision of the Honble High Court of A.p. in W.A.No. 483 of , 021 dated 05-08-2021 based on principle laid by the Hont I r Supreme Court in C.A. No. I2S4 of 2018 Apex Court, d;r ed 23_03_ 2018 to reckon contingent services of pe.i .ioner for computation of qualifying service to grant o pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits by releasing consequential monetary benefits in the last lrae post including periodical increments, as revised from t r re to time with 100 percentage compensation as per princi6le laid by Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Avta r Chand in C.A.No. 34t6 - 3445 of 2010 and Batch Cases dat :d 19_02_ 2019 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by apptying the aforesaid principles and decisions of the Honble Apex : lurt and Division Benches under Article 141 of our Cons _i :ution by this Honble Court in the case of petitioner and pass ..,, 5 SN, J vtp_26485 ]022 3 Lear ed counsel aoDear oonb n ehalf of r ti n eon he e affid vit filed rn suDD rt of th oresent writ oetition a n r wit rvt e b titled for the decade conte ds that heo etiti ner as en rese writ f s ra PERU ED THE REC ORD:- DISCUS ION AND CONC LUSION:- unsel a DDearln

4. Learned petitioner su bmits that the subiect issue in the oresent ft his cou rt. dated elv covered bv he rder s souar case i (} half of ssed in W.P-N o-2 o8.o9.2010 2011 1 ) ALD, Paoe 234 as con rmed in W.A.No.7 2ot 19.09. 20L7 13 and also 2010 dated 1 .o6. orde r 2o o 43 77 of2 OO7 r inW .272L7 of 2O1 re o 1 2A2 r .P No.2 t 20L9 1 20 n .20 A Pa 79

5. Lea ned standino 4su u nse la T't'EA rl d o nb half of e e f t ) .t 6 Detit era SD ut-fo rth inth h a s t t e ti I I s n n h SN, J -26485 _2022 h eo sent Writ P -'tition ad ot tni rsond tea nd on en m ain ir ra tion onthe I orievance of t t n n t a DCtiti ner tn the Dre ent wi h n d h e o d a a s a u t r n DE d s a1ed for bv the itionca nrr rt be t a! | | resDo ndents itil ner mav be t u o h h t r1 ! h t Dre en t nto the resDOn dents hereirt c b wa e ar t r r h f n asonableoeriod. sDUt- rfad etailed and uDon o! dents would 1r, within a 6 n d u r n h f f l:l re Deti tioner e U e d s ndi no cou nsel aoDea ino on be alf of h No.4 1 the learned re Dondent 7 SN, J wp-264E5_2022

7. The Aoex Co rt ln het tudoment reDort n (2O2O) 1 scc (L&s ) in Prem SinohvSta fU ttar Pr deshan d others-at para 36 held as under:

"36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30- 40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts oF the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the reoular estabtichrnant and the servrces rendered bv them r dht fr(rm the dav thev entered the work-cha roed estahlichme t shall e counted as o ualifvi no serv!ce for ouroose of nens on." n

8. The Apex Court in he case of D rwad Distri a PWD Literate Dailv Waqe Emplovees Association Vs. State of Karnat ka rEDo dinI. qqor 2 'l scCP that the State shoul eoaD erson tn temo ra rv or 396 a id orlnc ole ) ) 8 SN. J \'!p .26485 _2022 for lonq oeriod and have I o treat such Dersons as reqular one.

9. Para No.53 of the of the iudqment of tl e Aoex Court in th a rnata ka and others Vs. U rl radevi, dated reoorted in (2006) 4 scclas extra ed te of

10.o4.20(J6, hereunder:- I 1 DO reou ari tion oft he se ten vears or more needs to be clari ied. here mav be "53. One aso cases whe e trreqular a intments (not illeoal aoooin tments) as exol ined in s.v. _ {aravanapDa .N da a 1L972 (Lr s 196 28 scc 4O9'l and B.N. Naqar ian l-19 79 t) sc 5071 and referredtoin Dara 15 above, Of rl ulY g, alified Dersons in dulv sanctio ed vacan Dosl m iqht h ve bee made and the emDl vees have r rontin ed to work for ut vithout the inte rventio of ord rsoft e courtsor of tribunals. The uesti on ,ices of such a emol ovees mav have to be const ered )n merits in the lioht of the orincioles s ttled bv this Co rt in the abovereferred to andint he lioht of this nt. In that context, the U g f India, the Govern ments and Stat instr rmen lities sho ld take steDs to reqularize as _ a one-time vices of such irreqular I I ADOOinted, who have worked for ten vears or m cre i san ioned osts but not under coverof ( rders of the or of tribunals and should fu rther '_ ensure that reoular vaca nt san ioned oosts th t reoui to re filled uo. ailv waoers are beino now em oved. The oro ce st be set in th f m his ses wh ere te m orarv e olovee sor ( ss mt nderta en t ) fill recruitmen w1 hi stx 9 SN. J w]648s]022

10. The iudomen of the t ADex Court date

20.12.2024. reoorted in 2(J24 LawSuit(Sc) L209 n .laoqo Anita and Uni n of Indi nd ot v DaraqraDh Nos.12, L3.24.26 27 and 28 are extracted hereunder: "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 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 thear work. 13. The claim bv the resoonden these were not reoular oosts lacks merit, as rk oerformed bv the the na ure of the the functioninq of the offices. The recurrinI 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. lla nts ) ) l0 SN, J wp 26485 2022

24. The landmark judgment of the Unit( d State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corpor;r ion [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a t) rrtinent example from the private sector, illustrat ng the consequences of misclassifying emplo,z:es to circumvent providi ng benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as indet endent contractors, thereby denying them er ployee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for ttr, r Ninth Circuit determined that these workers !|/ tre , lfl fact common-law employees and were ent Uedto the same benefits as regular emplo yees. Ttr, ) Court noted that large Corporations have incr,-. tsingly adopted the practice of hiring terr porary employees or independent contra ctors as a 'neans of avoiding payment of employee benefits, t rereby tn creasing their profits. This judgment unde rr scores the principle that the nature of ther work performed, rather than the label assigned :o the worker, sho uld determine employment star:r s and the corresponding rights and benefit ;. It ! fvinq t that h w r ,,irregular',

26. . . While the judgment in Uma Devt r.: upra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor e niries and ensure appointments adhered to constitr tional principles, it is regrettable that its principl( s are often misinterpreted or misa pplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employee; This judgment aimed to distinguish between " legal" appointrr ents. rl ;in :d in )ne- rt of :ion s t ow e m s a dulv sa nctio ned sts andha ds continuou slv for more tha n ten vearss b time measure. H owever the laudable int, the judgment is being su bverted when instit rely on its dicta to indiscrim inately rele( claims of employees/ even in cases wh r al c h r a t 1 C SN, J wpJ64E5 2022 d indis Den appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, judgment's explicit overlooking the acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate, This selective aoolication distorts the iud oment's soirit a nd ourDOSe. e adatnste nrnlavees wha have wea DO n t2in serv!ces over h render decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practaces, 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 .10.2078 are quashed ; ) ) 12 SN, J wp-26185 _2022 ii. The aopellants shall b back on d utv fo hwith an( servrces reou larised However, C ADDE llants s hall a benefits/back waqes for the the have of wo ed for but for the said oeri d and the wouldbe count re ira! d n n g taken I their ! hwith. _ rot be g uniarv _ reriod _ would 6 rvices _ same _ post-

11. The Judoment of the Aper Court dateil 31.O1.2025 re Dortedin2O 25 INsc 144 in "SH RIPAL ANlC ANOTHER v. AGA NI cular the relevant M Dara Nos 15 to 19 are extra cted hereund er: r e t irectio the Ao Ev the Emoloyer's failuretof urnish SUr:h despite d ns to do inference u nder iurisprudence. Indian Iabou r law s "15. It is manifest lla rt Wo rkmen continuouslv renderedth eir servi es )ver ve rs, so metimes sD nnino more thi1r a decade. record s- o-allows _ an adverse labour toem nts in rmanent an who fulfil '_ after vear urrements ri! s _ lisoensable, D a rticu la r vln the abs nce ofao enulflr: contrac tor nature. onqoino mun lc! al b e ( ora ! lv and leoallv worker:; um n sw we ll-establ ishr: I n r r ( l3 SN, J wp:26485 ]022 aqreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater 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 governmenta I 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: oMi suse of "Temnor rw" Labe e Emr'lovees w rk that rec rrln teoral to the u nctionino of an insti tution and i s" oftenl tem DOrarv en their roles mirro r "contractual." eve f lled a f ( SN, J ttp _26485 _?022 l4 u e s s r n m e f s e s.s or kersof th t reoular te oerformino s s m identic I tas s. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporaq, employees are frequently dismissed without cause cr notice, as seen in the present case. This practice tndermines the principles of naturaljustice and subjo :ts workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardie: s of the quality or duration of their service. . - rck of Career Progression: Tem porary employee s often find tnemselves excluded from opportrr rities for skill development, prom otions, or increm(l rtal pay raises. They remain stagnant in their rcl ts, creating a systemic disparity between them a,.l I their regular counterparts, despite their contr.i )utions being equally significant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shie ( : Institutions lncreaslngly resort to outsourcing role: performed by temporary employe es, effectively re : acing one set or exploited workers with another. Tt- s prictice not only perpetuates exploitation but als: demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obli lation to offer reg ula r employment . . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefi.s: Temporary employees are often denied fundarr:ntal benefits ur. pension, provident fund, he;lth insurance, :y._h and paid leave, even when their [enure spans decades. This lack of social security ,ubiects tnem and their famllies to undue hardship,, especially in cases of illness, retirement, cr unforeseen circu msta nces.,.

16. The High Court did acknowledge inability to justify these abrupt terminations it ordered re-engagemen t on daily wage t- 3 Employer's )onseq u en tly, with some l5 SN, J w 26485jn22 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. L7. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial thev were enqa ed in Disputes Act, 1947, and that essential, oeren nial duties these wo rkers cann ot be tv. While co ncerns releqated to Dero com D aance with recru itment rules merit consi d eration such concerns unicioal bud o et uaI unc erta in a nd f sta not a h Em lo Indeed, neoate eouitable nnot trum o the leqitimate ucratic !im itations of workmen who h ve served continuouslv in de fa o reoular roles for an extended entitlements. riod.

18. The imou oned or er oft I wi ho utco nti n u itv ln the dailv-waoe en oaoe e ioh Court, to the o nt h e H d u I t6 SN. J wp_26485 _2022 meani noful back waqes, is herebv set rsid e with the followino directi ns: I. The discontinuation of the Appellrnt Workmen,s services, effected without compliancer ryith Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.p. Industrrt I Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. Al orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the App€ Ilant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in se .vice from the date of their termination, for all pu16 oses, including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer sha I reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respe: ive posts ( or posts akin to the duties they previot ;ly performed) within four weeks from the date of his judgment. T fr n the date of termination until actual reinstaterl rent) shall be counted for continuity of serl tce and all conseoue tial nefits such as ien ioritv re tre b t III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o of t te back wages from the date of their discontinua: ln until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent -mployer shall clear the aforesaid dues within thre: montiis from the date of their reinstatement. I mo! ent E IV. The Resoo n directed to orocess for rn within six ement, dulv e performed I Der anent reo lar i1 :ation, the I cationa! or su h r I ed to the Aooella nt Workmen orto simil, 3 rlv situa d oosts. r m r ced ral assessino roa ivel r e ts h r t7 SN, J w_26485 _2022 reqular emplovees an the Dast. To the extent that sanctioned v ca ncies for such duties exist the Res oondent molover shal! orare reouire exDedi te all necessarv administrative Dro esses n u n ti m indefin itelv retained on dailv waoes contrarv to statutorv and eouitable n rms.

19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed." L2. The Aoex Co rt in a iudo ment reoorted in (20L7)L Suo me Court Cases 148 n stateo fP un ab and others its sub- aras vs Jaoiit Sinq and others at Paras 54 an (1)( )(3). of the said iud ment obse rved as u nder: "54 "The Fult 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 igiinst the'regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after. uhdergoing a ietection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to att other eligible candidates' shatt be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. ted adatn s n st reo I e B 2 ADD ointees are anctio ot eDDI" t , n )) )J l8 SN, J wp 26485 2022 , bv the State for a sufficient ailv waoers, ad be entitled to e without anv that work of ,ino worked for itable rioht is ns:, Their claim for 2 be considered sche e. (3-) In the event, a claim is made for rr,t limum pay scate after more than three years and wo months of completion of 10 years of continuous vorking, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractuat employee:.t alt betntitted to arrears for a period of three years and trv, months.,,

13. e ud en of h s 2 tw en: s e f o e r !:d in 2O1O(9) ka end oth r v L es o e ar s4 t o9 reads as u nder:

4. v, ad'? inS te fKa e 10 4 ,i was rendered _ n that case. a Constitution Bench of this Court held that \ intments made without the due process or th L les relating to appointment did not confer any right on the lppointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regu I t -ization or re_ engagement nor make their sen/ice permaner t and the High Coutt in exercise of jurisdiction under Arti 226 of the Constitution should not o rdi na ri ly issue d i rectio n s for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless he recruitment had been done in a regular manneL in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the cou rts mt: r: be careful in ensLlring that they do not interfere und,uly wiLl the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its in. trumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facitita .r the bypassing of the constitutional an d statutory mandates. Tlt Court further held that a tempora ry, contractual, casual cr a daily- wage employee does not have a legal right to be n,, de permanent unless he had been a 'ant rules or in ppointed in terms of the retc :\ 19 SN, J wp,26485 _2022 adherence of Articles 14 and 76 of the Constitution. This Coutt however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : s fo lre cle "53- One as',ect n cases where irueoular aoooin There ma whe illeoal ents (not Derson s in dulv sanction been made an work for ten The such MDlo vees ntion of orders of f reoula uestion 7 vacant rso r more but witho ts mioht have the emD ovees have continu d to courts or of trib n als. s of th, ti, ev have to be conside tion of the se ,he of thIs iudom nt. I nth tc ontext. rnments India ke steDs instrumental.I aon time measure. the serv teG s shauld e n the Unionof reoularize as ch irreoularlv orders of the cou furth t h a reouire to be enSU or of 'ib r re rU n D. tn within six months rom this d, u te. ndsh ou e itm ents ate 'e "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principtes against 'regularization' enunciated in umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (i) The emptoyee concerned should have worked for 70 years or- 'more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any cou rt 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' eien if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or r ( 20 SN, J wp_26485 _2022 continued against sanctioned posts or whe e the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minim,, n qualifications, the appointments wirt be considered to be ilega. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed ,61111r"r,ons and wa: working against sanctioned posts, but h, t been setected y,.r!,o1r_:r.o:rsoing the process of open comp,,tiiive setection, sucn appointments are considered to be irreguia . -q d, d s 4 oo ,e concerned pke steos to 'i rlv aooointed I an ten ! -.rim orders of 2 tre. Umadevi, ,st be se tn te _ tf its decision m

6. The term ' one-time measure, has to be L! derstood in its proper perspective. This wou ld normally mear that after the dgcisi.on in Umadevi, each departm"nt o, iii,, instrumentality should. undertake a one-time exercise ana-pit arre a tist of att 21,lfi: o:!! *".9e or ad hoc emptoyee, *n[ n,i, i o"un workins rol. more than ten years without the interuenttc t of courts a nld trilu.lals and subject them to a process ve -ification as to whether they are working against vacant posts tnd possess the requisite qualification for me post and 'if si, :egularize their sewices, 7. At the end of six month s from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daitv-wiieAa_nii)r:r srat emptoyees were .still pending before Couits. Conseq,sn11y, several departments and instrumental ities did not conr,lence the one_ t!.1^-llOut1riz.atron process. On the othc! hand, some uovernment departments or instrumentalitie:; undertook the one-time exercise excluding several e,t ployees from consideration .either on the ground that their ca:;t's were pending tn courts or due to sheer over=;ight- In such ciftumstances, the llployees who were entitted fo be considered it terms of para 5-? of .the decisian in Ltmadev-i, wili not iose .t eir right to be c-onsid:red for regularization, merely becars.e the one-time "^:-::,:"^ ,y1s compte.ted without consiaerinj- heir cases, or i.^1"1?:_,rn",six.month period rnentioned in pZre 53 of lJmadevi uds exptreo. I he one-time exercise should cc,r sider all daity- wage/adhoc/those employees who had put it 10 years of 2t SN, J wp_264E5422 continuous setvice as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any emptoyer had hetd the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of lJmadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of lJmadevi, 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 att the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of lJmadevi, are so considered.

8. The obiect behin t 'he said ninDa 53 of more th n ten vears have Dut without the Drotectio of anv interim orders of tribun als. before the rende d. are considered f continuous service tts or fde crston ,n Umadev w,as , ninv. w of r reoulariz ens ure that the no serv e. Second of emolovino Dersans on Dra neriods a d then oeri hoc/casual for reoularize them n thed rou d the tth e en te vears. herehv d'efea nd the consti ointment. deilv-waa e /ad- ,callv tional a it, e n s e w I, the da vacant Dosts. Do L to be considered for reoularizat, ion. The fact that 'sina th reouisite d ua lificatio w, r mited fetp- wi ht to be h tion withtn nths of the decis d reoula Umad'evi or that such exe 'se wes u derta ken onlv in not d !se ntitle such emolo vees- the -time softhea in te measure. g. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in lJmadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or thereafter. sidered for reoula s tn Uma e asaon e ,

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents shoutd be considered in accordance with ) .j 22 SN, J w_26485_2022 law. The only further direction that needs be i ven, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zita panchayat, Gac;i g should now undertake an exercise within six months, a g=ierat one_ time regula.rization exercise, to find out whether tit .e are any daity wage/casual/ad-hoc emptoyees serving the Zila ,,anchayat and'if so whether such employees (includiig the res nndeitsl futfitt the requirements mentioned in para 5i of tJmad yi. It they fulfitt them, their services have to be regularized. If :,tch an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or ofi itting the cases of respondents I to 3 because oflhe p6ndenct of t-hese cases, then their cases shall have to be considered i,-t continuation of the said one time exercise within three months, ,t is needless to s_ay tLat if the respondents do not futfilt the equirements of Para 53 of lJmadevi, their services need not b, iegularised. If the employees who have completed ten year; service do not ?.oss9:s the educational qualifications prescribel for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This'appe,,t is disposed of accordingly. the Ao xc

14. In the iudome nt of ourt in Nihal and othe v.state Sinoh Puniab reDorted in( o 13) 14 scc 65, the Supreme Court considered the case c f absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the itate, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose (l sposat their services were made avaitabte. It held that t te mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did nr): render the appellants 'employees, of those Bankr; since the apBointment was made by the State anrl disciptinar.y, control vested with the State. It hetd that thr: creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadrer is a matter Z) SN, J w]648s 2022 exctusively within the authority of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractua! It also refusedto relationship, its action is arbitrary. he de h t h n o w s of larqe number of eoole like he aooella ts for r t decad es. It held that "sa n ctto n ed Dosts do not fal heaven" and that the Sta te h a to create them bva consct ous cho rce n thebas of so me ra o nal asses Referrin to mad ev before them were not a r h tran U t held that the aDD llants was not r r o been made in accordan CE with he statu rv Droc du re r be he Po ce a 1 t Sta rbed into t s as. acc e ces of th State o Dermanent ordino o t-t hear aDDo tments were Du relv e tem orarv a nd not a alnst nv san toned o sts created bv the S tate. It was hel can ot become a lic nce for that he 1 ud m entinU mad evt o ta lonbv the State and exD ( their ini 24 SN, J \\p _26485 -2022 u n n Pu niab nor hose oub lc secto!'Banks can c() 1ti ue sucha e Gc ver a t co an wt t n

15. T c m t t7 7 etw nB N llo M tc N o Di r r oar as7 and 8 readsa under: (7) on ofu nctio I r e rted in 2015 nn a u _ and others v its t rmmissio er, h d in partic lar 2 n 9 n 9 adopted bv the ! The apoellant - )Jrly prloLlo the I to the issue of ,( ing a statutory i e of the above tlmost 20 years t; and continued the respondents G.O. till todav, The respondent Mun icipa body is obliged by the G.O. 212(s upra ). mentioned G.O. without regula rising the service of the to extract work from the appettants. 8. In the circumstances, refusing the beneitt of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground thai the upp.i,, it, approached the- Trib.unal belatedly, in our opinion, is not , ustified. In the qrcum.stances, the appeal is allowed modifyinq' .he order under directing that the appertants' t"iii", be regutarised app.eal with effect from the date ?f inui, ,o-piti;i; their five year continuous service as was laid down by this- t iurt in District 9o1t:c!9a/Chairperson & Others vs. u.t.'Singl t ors. 2Aa9 (S) SCC 4BO. -by t

16. n o 1:ed (2O15) 8 SCC 265. the Supreme Court held that ..Ire objective B ar v 25 SN, J w_264E5-2i22 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 to ensure secur wof +heS+rla .r+ ,if +hac6 anrnIarrnr wh had ,rarcrl Governm nt and their instrum ntal e it es for more than ten In tha ca e em lo e w rkin This deci s ona DO rl ler vtew exD ssed M.L.Kesari extracted above. L7. In State ofJ arkhand ( t r.\ a 20 vK a mal Prasad re o rted in ta ba Suoreme urt and it was held as follows f ir cervice for more than 7 thc aatcd ofl 'aal find ,nooffa rl ont he "47---- fn relevant contentious issue that the resDondent emDlovees have continued in continuouslv therefore, the teoal orinciole laid down bv this Court in Ltmadevi case (State of Karnataka v Umadevi souarelv aoolies to the oresent cases. The Division Bench of the eld that the resoondent Hioh Co rt has riohtlv emolovees are entit.Ied fof t p-re e the same c'annot be intertered with bv this Court." 2,,.,6 scc ( P.sl 73 I et Dard oo6 4SCC7

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2-2O22 passed in W.P.No.27602 of 2O19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshma Narasimha ) 26 SN, J wp_26485 _2022 Swamy Temple, yadadri, Nalgonda fr strict, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 ot 2023 dated 1O.1O.2ll23 and atso confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.OA.2O24 in SLp No.32847 ot 2024.

19. The ludqment of the A x Cou rish n a Ma ndir Trust V. StateofMaharas h raa ndO rers reported 3969 and inp rti ular oara IR2 20s Drem Cou in Hari a Nos.1 oo and 1O1 held s follows: "100. The High Courts exercising their ju-;diction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no: only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or ir the nature of mandamus, but are dutv-bound to ei <ercise such DO er, w ere t EG Dt:il rlic authoritv w n lv ex rcised tr: or a rule. or as exercised r irrelevant rnme tor to exerci se or has u n s r I considerati on.

101. In all such cases, the High Court must ssue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel p erformance in an appropriate and lawful manner of he discretion conferred upon the Government or a public r lthority.,,

20. The Div lston Benc of his Cou rt udq ment da d10 .o6.20 3oa ed in W.A.N s.782 of 2O1O and 854 of O12 whileu pholdi nq the Judo ent ater O8.O 9.2010 ln r:s !'l 27 SN, J wp _26485 '2022 Dassed in W.P .No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C. o.48 of 2OO8 observed as under:- "Further, it is manifest from the material on record that the services of the similarly placed persons who approached the law Courts were regularized. The a ppella nt-Corporation also issued various office orders/circula rs dated 20.12.1989, 11.09'1992, 06.10.2007 and latest belng 4.7.2009 for regularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25- T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for such a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but unfair labour practice attracting the 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 all the aspects of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals." 2L. TheD visron Bench of this Co rti n its -Iu d ment dated 19.O9.20L7 oassed in W.P. No.27217 of 2OL7 ra1 r 16 in 2O18 2 2 2at 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 lJma 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 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/regula 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' ) l 28 SN, J ',p_26485_2022 The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious tf various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executiv€ orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994, while giv r g directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in Urna Devi,s ca.e (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of ._l e States where State enactme nts bann ing regulariz :;orption exist. ation/a I 2 of 199 re. Act The 4 1OO and G _ r1o.212, dated .O. Ms. 22.4.1994, do not *whittle down the v{ dth and the iudoment in Maniula Bashini,s case (sut2 'a ), does not lower the traiectory of the directions i.! sued bv the Suoreme Court an para 53 of its iudoment_ n Uma Devi's case (suora). ft is, therefore, not oerm i., sible for the respondents to take shelter under Act 2 of_ 994 a d G.o. Ms- No.2 12- da d a2-4 1 94- to tlc re g ularization to the Detitioners who h e. admi dlv. _ satisfied the criter ia laid do n in Para No.53 of t e iucl, rment n Uma Deyi's case (suora ). 18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, ci ted 27.6.2017, in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribr tal is set aside and the writ Detition is allowed with the di'ection to the resoondents to consider reqularisation of I re services of the petitioners against the existing vacal cies of Work Inspectors and appoint them subiect to t! eir satisfvino the criteria laid down in para No.53 of tl-1 iudo ent Uma Devi's case (suora). This process mus! be comoteted wathin two months from the date of receit2 : of a cooy of this order." 22. The D tvrston tn I s Judoment r in1of2 019 and W.P.No. 3O57 of 2O19 re orted in 2020 '4)ALD oaqe 379 at Daras 45.48 a nd oara 5O observed as t nder:- ench of this Cou TI "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have l):en working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almo:;1 (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum ime-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously v orking without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till d;rl e. 44. ft is notkn w e 1st Dol o inU evi' l lent has not ;r :(suora), as lt w 29 SN, J wp_264E5 ]022 a arzaraica exDlained in M.L. Kesari's ca e (suora) and und tac+^frfr ,t ria-t ? than ten (1O) vears rked for mo emDlov ees who had without the intervention of the Courts and Tribunals as on 10.4.2006 and subiect them to a Drocess verification as to rkino aoain t vacant Do s and whether thev are possess reouisite oualifications for the Dosts, and if so' reoularize their services. ertaken a it w

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 t4, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the ed to reo u la rize n one-time basts from th date each of the oetit oners Detiti ners servl f ir annoint mFnt- But- thev shal lnitial dates of t done withi n two (2) weeks from the date of r coDv of t e order." dents are d ect m ot Jre iot of x r m e

23. This Court oDin st hat e n t Dresent case the resDonden ts fai! to disch roe heir du t tv rn exa rnlnq the reo uest ot et tloner reo u la rization of Detitioner's servaces, w ors wo no as full t me swe eDer er to r his o e rvice of I w e era qrad oav with oeriodic I increm ntr evrsed from ti eto n r u I t m n r accordance to law, ) ,l 30 SN, J \\'p 26485 2022 24, s IN entitled for consi deration of petitioner's ca se for qra nt( the relief as Drayed for ln the oresent Writ Petitio n irr view of the ob ervations of lnv artorI ;i udq ments the Aoex Court I e r d B t and extra dab ve. v a u !ew enl s r eferre

25. Ta kino i nto c nsideration!- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances o1 the case. b) The submissions made by the lear red counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and rear ned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the responderr: Nos.4 & 5. c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted abor,,r:) and again enlisted below: i)(202o) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC paqe 396 (iii) 2O2s rNsc 144 (4") 2024 Lawsuit(sC) 12O9 (v) (2017) l SCc 148 (vi) 2O1o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Ontine SC L7g7 31 SN, J wpJ6485:2022 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (zo1-4)7 sCC223 (xi) sLP No.32847 of 2024 (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 d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 ol 2O1O and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dated O8.O9.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 20O7 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.272t7 ot 2O17 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 ol 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23O57 of 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' The Writ Petitron I d ire edt o Dut-fortht he cla a ilow d. the Detition rts oft he Det tioner R ) lari ati e lone t 32 o SN, J wp _26485 _2022 s s a lso the clalm em or s rvt ( sof the Detitioner in the Iast qrad DO ofconti qe I t Der as u r th eri di h n u tia b r f s t docum ents !n s UDDort ofoetitio er's casea eti ron wt wr! r! f m the d te f of co g st grade oav tita C C t timefr m ner and all il _ the relevant I u o h in fr 2 ne (O1) week rder and l e de s all e a co n to w n st er :he same tn t lesof atu AI tice bv Drovidinq anoD ortu nitv foerso alh eari e o e n r in ter s I s b '_ the Suoreme nq to c U a Devi' 2 6

4. scC Paoe1, e w P. 2 77 o8 .o9.20 1O reported 2011 (1) ALD, PA q I ( 2 oo7 dated 234 and as fir e an W.A N al oa D vts! nB 1 9 o1 a s o1 AL 2 8 of o1 d d o.,t6 20 13, and J m t thi s Co urt dated P 2t h o0..,' reoorted in Dir isionBe ch 33 SN, J v,p)64ts_022 d I.A. Nos.1 t 2020 in1 d 4 2019 n W.P. o.23O 7ot2 o19 20 ALD a e w a riod f four 4 w ks fr mth n the nsa dth law ddo nb t urt i a m J' r o.5 a tudoment oft eA 'x Cou,t in the a v se of State of m declslon to the oetiti oner. However. there sh all be no Miscellaneous petitions, if anv- nendino in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. s .S. GOWRI SHANKAR STANTREGI //TRUE COPYI/ one fair copy to the tlon'ble Mrc Justke (for Her LadYships Kind Perusa SECNON OFFICER To, 1 The Principal Secretary, Panchayathrai Departrnent' Telangana Secretariat' Hyderabad.

2. The Princioal Secre{ary' Secretariat, HYderabad Finance and Planning Department, Telangana 3- The District Collector, and Chairman of Selection Committee and Minimum Wages Committee, Siddipet District'

4.TheZillaPraiaParishad'siddipetOistrict,Rep'byitsCl-riefExecutiveOfficer 5. The Mandal Parishad Development officer, cherial Mandal, siddipet oistrict' TS,

6. One CC to SRI CH.GANESH, Advocate' TOPUCI 7. Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYATH RAJ, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUTI

8. Two CCs to GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNII'IG' High Court for the State of Telangana at HYdeabad [OUTI

9. One CC to SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR TG ZPf ' MPP IOPUCI

10. 11 LR.Copies 11. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministryof Law, Justicr: rnd Company Affairs, New Delhi

12. The Secretary, Advocates' Association Library, High Court Brri dings, Hyderabad' \

13.Two CD Copies. BSK P o. HIGH COURT DATED:2410712025 CC TODAY f ,iE S; i4 ( ot I I orr 2(125 ...:]r +') i .):i"/j nnr('.i\: . -.:.; '---.=a,':->' o O * ORDER WP.No.26485 of 2022 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I