SK Mahabub Ali v. The State of Telangana

Order

Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitaoner, Iearned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-Il appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.l to 3 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Kattaf learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 and 5. 2 The oetitioner aDoroach the Court seekinOD raver as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not treating the services of petitioner as regular one in last grade post for working from 38 long years on full time even not paying legitimate wages of Full Time Sweeper as per appointment dated 15.O9.1983 as unjust, unfair, totally arbitrary and violation of Article 74, 16, 21, 39(d), 43 and 300 A of our Constitution in denying legitimate living wages to petitioner by not implementing Section 13 and 15 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and provisions of Equal Remuneration Act 1976 and C,ovt Orders from time to time to pay living wages to petitioner and prays to direct the Respondents herein to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in last grade post from the date of initial appointmentof 15.09.1983 as per GO. Ms. No. 38, dated 01.02.1980 and G.O. Ms. No. 193, dated 14.03.1990 by applying the d€cision and principle laid 4 s}'aJ by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of t) State of U. P. (2019 (1) SCC 516) and Divi: this Honble Court in W.p. No. 33936 of 20 cases, dated 02.05.2018 (2020 (4) ALD followed by decision of the Hon,ble High C:r W.A. No. 483 of 2021, dated 05.08.20, principle laid by the Honble Supreme Courl L254 of 2018 Apex Court, dated 23.03.21) contingent services of petitioner for col qualifying service to grant of pension gratu retirement benefits by releasing consequenl benefits in the last grade post inciudir increments as revised from time to tirr percentage compensation as per principle Court in the case of Union of India Vs Av C.A. No. 3416-3445 of 2010 and Batch ( 79.02.20L9 (ALD 3 of 2Ot9 SC 32) by aforesaid principles and decisions of the t Court and Division Benches under Articl<: Constitution by this Hon,ble Court in t petitioner and pass. ... . " em Singh Vs ion Bench of 1 and Batch i79 TS (DB) urt of A.P in 1. based on ln C. A. No. .8 to reckon Tputation of ly and other ial monetary g periodical e with 100 aid by Apex ar Chand in ases, dated rpplying the on'ble Apex 141 of our re case of 3 Lear ed counsel aDDear tno on r c h m ln su !:half of the ; made in the writ petitaon n Tra !nlno ln Da f servr 3=rl rendered by n e n more than a r the :itled rel ef as raved for in the oresent rit o iti En. PER USED T E RECORD:- I ND ONCL IO 5 SN,J

4. Learned counsel aD rtnd on behalf of the petitioner submats that the subiect issue in the present a ardcr of this Co rt. dated case is souarelv covered bv O8.O9.2O10 oassed in w.P. N 2IL?77 ol 2OO7reoorted in u 2011(1) ALD. Paoe 234 as confi nred in r W.A.N o 782 of 2O1O, dated 1O.O6.2O13 and also order. dated 19.09.2017 Dassed in W.P.No.2721,7 ot 2 l7 ranor{ed in 2O a( 2 A LD 1 Paoe 282 and also the order, dated 21.O4.2O2O oassed in W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 reoo in 2O2O( 4 'l ALD Paoe 379. q La^ adc +- A n -^ha!tFrrtd n ]rahalf af + h resDondent No-4 subm ts that the orievance of the itioner as ut-fort r n had been addresse d to the resoo dents herein a n s on date and t herefor the natiliar ;-Fia+ a.rrtrrllirr i nrz'+i on an tha Dart of resoon ents herei n in co siderino the n orievance of the Detitioner an d hence- the relie as Dr f d for bv the Detitioner in t e Dresent wit r'etition cannot be oranted and no Mandamus can be issued aoainst the resDondents hereu nder as soudht for and tha nat tloner mavhe directed to Dut-forth the tioner's orievance as out- forth in the oresent Writ P tition trv wav of detailed 6 reDresen tion tot he re nde tsh the said re rese ntation the s 'l consider esa et n acco rdance to I rw. within a sIr, ,nd s SN,., ret r and uoon reasonable oeriod. 6, Learned counsel aooearino on behalf of the oetitioner _ lv the learned standino coun halfofl ! e resoondent No.4 7 The Apex Court in the iudoment reportC d in (2O2O) 1 1 pradesh and ot ers, 36 eld as under:

'36. There are some of the em ployees who h;, e not been reg ularized in spite of having rendered the serv ces for 30- 40 or more years whereas they have been su6rr rannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged est rblishment, not against any particu la r project, their servir:r s ought to have been regularized und er the Government l structions and even as per the deci sion of this Court I State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court n the said decision has laid down that in case services rave been rendered for more than ten years without the c )ver of the Court's order as one-time measure the s:rvices be those employees who have worked for ten ye3 s or more should have been regularized. It would not b( proper to regulate them for conlideration oF regularizati('t as others have been regularized, we direct that their s lrvices be treated as a regular one However, it is mad: clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues o rjifference iii itfEE.€ZEErc;Fl#agiir.E&ir;hcrlrF.z,--:i 7 SN,J 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 establishment and the serrices rendered by them rioht from the day thev entered the work-charoed establishment shall be counted as oualifvino service for ouroose of oension."

8. The Apex Court in the case of Dhanrvad District PWD I=r.nttslrs Literate Dailv Waoe Emolovees Association Vs- State of ra.trar.ta dinl oon,, \c c Pa aa 2OA f ri;l nr in nla that the Stat should not keeD a oerson in temDorarv or for lon Dersons eqular one. qDa rA N at153 of the zrf + h drrrrrarrt nf a A rtaY a.tr r r+ in the State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi, dated

10.04.2006 reoorted in (2 (|6) 4 SCC 1 is extracted hereu der:- "53. One asoect needs to be clarified. here mav be cases where irreoular appointments (not illeqal aoooant ents) as exolai ed in S-V- Nar va naDoa R12 1 a f lO 7o( ,\ caa E07 1 caf 4nor a It d B.N. N ara irn and referred to in oara 15 above, of dulv qualified lr+ h-rr6 R.N.

6.rG+G .,---6}. v crnaliana 7 a .ri 1 been made and the emolovees have con nued to work for ten vears or more but without the rts o aC inla rv ni ion of orders aC The ouestion of reoulariza on of the servt of such 8 SN,J em !ovees mav h r*l and in I oonsa err3 I on merits in in the rs Cou lioht of this of India. the trume ta lities ; a one-time rlv aDoorn ted, more in duly r c f orde ofthe, er ensure that to fal! those o be filled uo, r dailv waoers nust be set in :...,. oned Dosts but not nder cou4s or of tribunals and should furt,f reoular recruitments are undertake! yllca_ot_sanctioned posts that reouare .! in cases where temoorarv emol,ovees E are.Feinq. now emoloved. The or;cess_ motion within six months from this da[

10. Th iudo ent f the Aoex Court dat,e J 2o.12.20 24, rted an 2024 La Suit(sc) 1 o9 in Jat oo Anita and others v. Union of fndia and others, an,l the relevant 4 26, 27 and 28 are e xtracted Xos.f 1,3, hereunder: "12.- Despite being labelled as "par workersr" the appettants performed essentaal tasks on a daily and conr: basis over extensive periods, ranginc over a decade to nearly two decadesl engagement was not sporadic or terr in nature, instead, it was recurrent, r( and akin to the responsibilities t1r assocaated wath sanctioned posts. Mor the respondents did not engage any, personnel for these tasks durinc appellants - tenure, underscoring indispensable nature of their work. t-time Their rorary gular, rically :over, 9 SN,J

13. e r e n necessitates w the functioninq of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties irrespective of how classification as regular Posts, their initial engagements were labell ed. 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 occasiona

24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.Ea rraz (9th cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent from the private sector, illustrating the "r.i.pf" 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 fi.t, .o.*on-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees' The Court not"d thut large Corporations have increasingly of hiring temporary adopted the Practice contractors as a means employees or indePendent ployee benefits, thereby of avoiding PaYment of em s judgment underscores increasing their Profits- Thi nature of the work the PrinciPle that the e label assi(;ned to the performed, rather than th employment status and worker, should determine ts and benefits. It the corresPonding righ f t r h I s a d h r lv fai r r a l0 SN.] c r r d a o

26. While the judgment in Uma Dev (supra ) sought to curtail the practice of backdoc. entrie s and ensure appointm ents adhered to cons :itutional principles, it is regretta ble that its prin: ples are often m isinterpreted or misapplied ll den legitimate claims of long serving emplol,r es. Thi v j udgment aimed to distinguish betweerr s ''illegal" irregular" appoir tments. r lo y ees in n roed in _ served l; should _ a one- i rtent of itutions j )ct the e their e y lack € rn ment r r,: Devi i Int to r oyees/ :xplicit tion is ! storts :tive I v hg have _ _ over the judgm ent is being subve rted when inr; rely on i ts dicta to ind claims of employees, even in cases whr: nts are n appointme adherence to proced departments often ci (supra) to argue that no vested regularization exists for tem overlookin s judg ment's acknowled gment oF cases where regulari;:i appropriate. r However, th n I n a s s. "i d 27. In light of these considerations, --;;;:, opinion, it is imoerative departments to lead by example in providi ard_stable .employment. engjging ;";k;;; remporary basis for extenoe-Jteii";; when their roles are integral to'ttre-orgaiil ":; ru.nctioning, not only contravenes ;;;;;; labour standards but also exposes the oroar i cha[enges uno unil.-iinJ." I:t?!"' BY ensuring fair ;;i;; "?,j practices, government institutio?s-, reduce the burden of unnecessary litigr -reg.at n our ctr fair -'cia lly tio n's tiona I :ation tion, 11 SN,J 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 contributang to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. 2A. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated

27.tO.2OLA are quashed ; The DDellants shall be ii. dutv forthw ith and their servi s reoularised fo with. However, the aooellants shall not be oecunrarv entitl a nv s/back wa es for the oeriod be en led to continuitv of servtces for t e said oeriod and the same would be counted for their Dost- retiral benefits." d for w t

11. The .Iudoment ft heAoe xC ourtd ted 31.O1.2 o25 reDo in 2O25 I NSC 144 an HRI PAL AN D ANOT ER v. AR AZl !n n v n oara os.15 to 19 are extract ed hereu nder: *15. It is manifest nuouslv rendere m me th e Aooellant Workmen their servlces over se h n o t2 I o m Even if certain muster rolls were not p roduced in full, ;UCh reco rds- v SA n adverse inference under well-establiri led tabour lurl sDruden Indian I bour aw str! nolv disfa ors perpetual dailv-waoe or contractuat rg 1(laqementsin circumstances where the work is _ perm n r ( rs who fulfil onootno municiDal reouirements vr1 tr after vear cannot be dis ts mmarilv a _ disoensable, DA rticula rlv in the absence ao enl u ine contractor aqreement. At this juncture, it would b( appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefir i e "temporary" employment practices as done by a rece r t judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India n the following paragraphs: M "22. The pervasive misuse of tempor.i contracts, as exemplified in this c broader systemic issue that a(1, workers' rights and job security. sector, the rise of the gig econom / in_crease in precarious employment: often characterized by lack of benefit and fair treatment. Such practi(I criticized for exploiting workers a..l labour standards. Goveinment institlrl with upholding the principles of fairrt beal .9n even greater responsibility exploltative employment practices sector entities engage in misuse contracts, it not only mirrors the de: observed in the gig economy but concerning precedent that can erode l governmental operations. ry employment )se, reflects a ersely affects .n the private has led to an a rra ng em e nts, s, job secu rity, s have been J u nderm in ing rons, entrusted ss and ju stice, to avoid such When public of temporary imental trends also sets a rblic trust in 13 SN,J

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions' often iace 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 seveml ways: a suse of T fll nat rk th r rv" L he S:E molovees m identical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in ine piesent case. This practice underm.ines the principl6s 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 fiom opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises' They iemain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporar! employees, effectiveiy replacing one set of eiploitld workers wiEh another' This practice not only perpetuates exploiEation but also demonstrates t4 S\ a_ deliberate effort to bypass the r> rligation to offer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Riohts and Bert fits: Temporary emptoyees are often aenila- rrr-0, ,E"t"i'oherits "ir#"..", :::h gr. pension, provident rrra,'-i --iurr.""'.pun, and paid_ leave, even wnen itre i =.iin 9!!u9Sr: This tack of sociat ,".r.i, ,,lui!.i, in.rn and their famities to unore r,uiarli o, 1"Jp=lir:urrv in :lt_:r_- . "f illness, rertrement, )r unforeseen crrcumstances.., -he Employer,s

16. The High Court did acknowledge inability to justify these abrupt terminations Conseq uen Uy, it ordered re-engagement on daily wac es with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regr€rt :ably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant orkmen were left in a marginally improved yet still ur:ertain status. while the High court recognized the imp: tance of their work and hinted at eventual regularizati: r, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaninl; ul back wages commensurate with the degree of statt tory violation evident on record. 17. In light of these considerations, tt e Employer,s discontinuation of the Appellant Worknrr n stands in violation of the most basic labour law princit res. Once it is that their services were termit ated without Sections 6E and. 6N of the L.P. Industrial L947, and that thev were _ enqaoed in s cannot be le concerns trl th rn CE established adhering to Disputes Act, a ! l5 SN,J recruitment rules merat consaderation' such concerns do not absolve the Emolover of statutorv oblioations n burea ucratic li riqhts of work en who h reoular de fa itations I nnot tru m D the leoiti mate served conti n uou slv ln les for an extended r!od.

18. The imouoned order of the Hioh Court, to the !lant workme n to future exte t thev oonfinetheA dailv-waoe enoaoement rA, thout conti n ui asrde with the meantnoful ba wades- t herebv s followino directions: L The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without cornpliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, t947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terrninating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as contin uing 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 they previously performed) posts akin to the duti€s within four weeks frorn the date of this judgment' he da eof The r entire nariod ar,tua ;einstatemen t'l shall be termination u t servtce and all n h n ted for cont nuitw eliqibilitv for o motions, if anv. abse n ce( fro t s III. Considering the tength of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50yo of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their l6 SN.J actual reinstatement. The Responden : Employer shall clear the aForesaid dues within thrr e mont'hs from the date of their reinstatement. IV.,fhe nesoonden r _ initiate a fair and transoarerrl reqularizinq the Appellant Work! months from the date of reinJi considerino the fact that thev hi perennia! municioal duties akin_ postl. tn assesslno emolover shall not imoose r! orocedural criteria retroactili feoui_rements were never acl aooqltant Workmen or to sim! r9qular emptovees i tnat sanctioned vacancies for su.g or are.reouired, the Resoondent ! Crpedite all necessarv administral !q elsllrg these tono r]loetlnatetv retained on dailv wacr] statutorv and eouitable norEG.-- s directed to process for ren within six rtement, dulv ve oerformed to permanent ization, the lucationa! or rlv if such lied to the arlv situated 'o the extent rd es molover shall rve Drocesses yees are not e _

19. In view of the above, the appeal(s filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appealt s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed.,,

12. c e vs Jaoi Ca it si qha nd in (2OL7l t 1 b and others hers atParas 54and _ ts sub-oaras ! nder: ,,54 ,,The Fult Bench of the High Court, ite adjudicating upon the above controveryy h?d -conctuded, n.t ieipiluiT emptoyees were not entitted to the minimiiit,t. ,"gitiipii_ scale, merely for the reason, that the activitkt: cariea on 6y daily-wagers and regular employees *"ri iiitu, The fult bench ^,1 t7 SN,J however, made two exceptions. Temryrary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, werc held entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay-s@le drawn by regular employees. The exceptions\recorded by the full bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder: - "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned poits, if apPointed after undergoing a selelc/tion process based upon fairness and equatity of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2) B t if dailv rc- ad oc or con ADDO'Ntees ane not eDDoin eoainst eir sentices are availed senct,,on ks- bv t Stafe contin Government or iE instrumentalities for a sufficient hoc or contractual aooointees hall be entitledto minimum of the reaular oav scale without anv allowances on the essum oerennial nature is avallable and havino worked for ht is o oeriod of time. an eouiEble im for in such ca ns. Their to be con reoula separatetv in terms of teoallv Dermissible scheme. ,,osts end 'slv- with nolional tion, if a w. mav ha riod i.e. for 70 veeB. dailv wa 'he (j) In the event, a ctaim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three Years and two months of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contradual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months."

13. The i udoment of the Aoex Court reD rted in 2O1 scc 247 betwe n: state M.L. esara and others, in oa rticul f Karnata r. Daras 4 to 9 readsas and others v o(9) u nder:

4. The d n 10.4. tution ion in State of Kamataka v. Umadevi was rendered ', a of this Court held that appointments made tc, 7 18 sN,, without following the due process or the appointment did not confer any right on th, courts cannot direct their absorption, regL engagement nor make their seruice permane Court in exercise of jurisdiction under A.-, Constitution should not ordinarity issue directit regularization, or permanent continuance unle: had been done in a regular manneL it constitutional scheme; and that the coutts fi ensuring that they do not interfere unduly w arrangement of its affairs by the State or its nor lend themselves to be instruments to faciltt of the constitutional and statutory mandates. . held that a temporary, contractuat, casual employee does not have a tegal right to be unless he had been appointed in terms of the n adherence of Artictes 14 and 76 of the Constit however made one exception to the above same is extracted below : 'ules relating to appointees and tarization or re- 1t, and the High ;cle 226 of the 1s for absorption, ; the recru itment terms of the rst be careful in th the economic nstrumentalities, te the bypassing 'his Court futther tr a daily-wage nade permanent levant rules or in ftion. This Court ,osition and the "53. One asoect needs to be ctarifieg cases where irreoular aooointme,p 7 such emolovees mav have Go be ulv sa nction DoS . There may be ts hot illegat Naravanappa ppa t7972 (1) (41 SCC 507t ' dulv qualified sE mioht have , continued to ' without the ,r of ttibunals. le seruices of considered on ,ettled bv this nd in the lioht the Union of and their t reoularize as uch ineaularly vears or mone nder cover of 's and should uitments a,E ctioned posts _ cases wherc ,r1s ane ! I n,, :t t9 SN,J now em ved. The within six months from this daE. .,.. must be set motion , --- S;-Iti s' evid e nt-fro m the-abwe-thafttrereis a n exce ption to the general principles against ' regularization' enunciated in lJmadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 70 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have emploYed the employee and continued him in seruice voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open @mpetitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. sts a uDon mentalitv. rvices of the con to Eke s Ds to ularlv ao for more then ten vears f o (iii ) Umadevi Government or in reoularize the emDlo vees who had u the da of its dectslon motion within s, months ( rendered on 7O.4.2O061, 6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in lJmadevi, each dePartment or each instrumentalitY should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casuat, daily-wage or ad hoc employees wlp have ben wo*ing for more than ten years without the inteNention of courts and tribunats and subiect them to a proess verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite quatification for the post and if so, regularize their seruices. t 20 SN,J

7. At the end of six months from the d,t Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc1 were s ll pending before Courts. Conse departments and instrumentalities did not cot time regularization process. On the oth Government departments or instrumenta litt€ one-time exercise excluding several ( consideration either on the ground that their c. in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such ,: employees who were entitled to be considerec 53 of the decision in lJmadevi, will not lose, considered for regularization, merely becad exercise was completed without considerinT beause the six month period mentioned in p,i has expired. The one-time exercise should wage/adhoc/those employees who had put continuous service as on 1O.4.2006 witf,< protection of any interim orders of courts o; employer had held the one-time exercise in k:t Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of sor,.l wer.e entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Llmad concerned should consider their cases also, a:; the one-time exercise. The one time exercise only when all the emptoyees who are entitlec, in terms of Para 53 of lJmadevi, are so consider = e of decision in :asual employees Tuently, several lmence the one- tr hand, some ; undertook the mployees from ;es were pending 'cumstances, the in terms of Para their right to be :e the one-time their cases, or 'a 53 of Umadevi tnsider all daily- in 10 years of ut availing the tribunals. If any ns of para 53 of t employees who tvi, the employer z continuation of vill he concluded :o be considered trJ. evi is two- First lono semtce. Secon rtments/instru ntali sdo to eh Drotection of anv interim order of anv cou, vac?Ot posts, possessind the reouisile ot entitled to be considered for reoutariiii6 ' in Dara 53 of t hat those who l inuous seruice rs of coutfs ot ,l Umadevi was ! !. on in view of 'i ure that the Eerpetuate the .l lailv-waae/ad- 9 n periodicallv ! ave served for '! constitutionat ! ruitment and . ion is that all lrn vears as on ,l i) without the i or tribunal. in '! rlification. are L ,_The fact that 2l SN,J ited fc measure. , not d, title such e

9. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in Llmadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regutarization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or thereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has direded that the cases of respondents should be considerzd in accordance with law. The oniy further direction that needs be given, in view of lJmadevi, is that the Zita Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wige/casual/ad-hoc emptoyees serving the Zila Panchayat and ,if. so'whether such employees (including the respodents) tulfil! the requirements mentioned in para 53 of llmadevi. If they fultill 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 Lheir 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 fulfilt the requirements of Pira 53 of lJmadevi, their seruices need not be regularised' If the emptoyees who have completed ten years sen/ice do not possess tie educational qualifications preicribed for the Post, at 'the time of their appointment, theY may be considered for regularization in suitabte lower posts. This appeal is dispo*d of accordinglY. ,,4. Int e iudq ent of he Aoex court i Nihal Sinoh Vt Pu n 65, the Supreme Court considered the Gase of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose L 4S 22 wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It hetd th:r the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did rot render the appellants 'employees' of those Barr <s since the appointment was made by the State a td disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that t:l ,e creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cad r e is a matter exclusively within the authoraty of the St tte, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but :hose to make appointments of persons creating contractual. relationship, its action is arbitrary. It a!;o refused to r w s rcti on I DOsts a n r e C a to utila se th aooella nts for r I a h fall from a!: them bv a conscious choice oh the basis of some ratiorl rl assessment o e n l d U n aooointment was not an ,irreoular, n t I he aooel lants u their initial aooointrl ,ent as it had g rv orocedure 21 SN,J prescribed under the Police Act, 1861, and the State cannot be heard to sav that thev are not intitled to be r basis as, accordinq to it, their aooointments were ourelv temDorarv and not aoainst anY sanctioned Dosts created bv the State. It was held that the iudirm ent in U adevi tion bv the S te and either the Governme nt of cannot become a lice ce for exoloi its anstrumenta lities and Punia nor those oublic secto r Banks ca continue uch a h ir obl n accorda ce with the Con itution.

15. Nello scc Online SC 1797 b he iudoment of the Aoex Court eoorted in 2015 een B.Srinivasul and oth rsv Municaoa Coroorati n Reo.bv its Commissi oner, in oa rticular Andhra Pradesh a nd othe Nellore Distri paras 7 and 8 reads as under: (7) We find it difficult to acceDt Hish Court. The rioht of the aooel nts to flows from the G. o. No.212 tssua nce of the said G.O. but even G.O. tilt today. The respondent Municipality being a sta body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 e reasonln o adooted v the k reoulan tion ted 22.4.1 94. The aD llant t onlv Drior to the tutory n tn servlce of the first resoondent ubseouent to the 24 u.vithoyt regularising the service of the appelte to extract work from the appettants. 8. In the circumstances, refusing the b<,t mentioned G.O, on the ground tha{ the app.e th.e Tribunal belatedty, in our opinion, is' n ) ctrcumstances, the appeal is allowed modifyr-t appeal by directing that the appellants, se'rvit with effect from the date of'their comptet,t continuous senice as was taid down by th,s Colleclgy'Chairperson & Othes vs. M.L. Singt SCC 48O. tts and continued efit of the above tlants approached justified. In the t the order under es be regularised q their five year Court in District A Ors. 2009 (8) Dnem In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar rerg eCo

16. rte (201 )8 scc265, theSu held that The objective behind the exception carved out in thas cas,: was to permit regularizataon of such appointment, which are arregutar but not- illegalr.-apd _to_.-ensure_ appointmer ts,- ,which. are irregular but not illegal, and to ensur_, ecuritv of employment rS DE nsw oha se ved the eir i stru enta ities for _ nore than ten ! G rn ent nd M. L.Ke n cted ab e. 1 for 2g vears. | lXD ssed (2 o14) 7 cc 22t. st SuDreme Cou rt an as he das ila r view wa rl l_ reported in ! rken bv the 25 SN,J , A fat* 'ha ln wiantt n ?hc tt11-_- tetevant contentious issue that the resoondent emDlovees have continued in their seruice for more than 70 vears continuoustv therefore. the teoat PrinciPte taid down bv this Court in atmadevi case (State of Karnataka v Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 7 : 2006 SCC (L&SI 73) at Dara 53 sduarely appties to the present cases. The Division Bench of the High Court has rightlv held that the resDondent art L ,ntefiered with bv th l.s Court." rAa tal FE

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6-L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.276O2 ot 2O19 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 an W.A.No.937 ot 2023 aated fO.fO.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLP No.32847 ot 2024.

19. The i doment of e Aoex Court in Hari rishna Mandir Trust V. State of Mah ash aan others re orted r T] t r 2O2O Suo me Court 3969 and in oarticula Dara in AI Nos.1 OO and l0l held as fo Iows: "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, 26 consid ati n. s\.1 lu te. or a rule, or 0 has e rcised _ on irrelevant

101. In all such cases, the High Court mu t issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to comp(!l performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a publi( authority.,,

20. The Division Bench of this Court ir! its Judoment dated 1O.06.2O13 oassed in W.A.Nos.7g2 o! 20 O and 854 of 2012 whi! uoholdin the Judo Dassed in w.P. No.24 77 nt da :d 8.09 .201() 2o(J7 and c.c ,.1 1o.48 of 2O0a t as under:- "Further, it is manifest from the material or services of the similarly placed persons who a c Lourts were regularized, The appellant_Corpc r various office orders/circulars dated 20.12.1! 06.10.2007 anil latest being 4.7.ZOO} for casual/contract employees, Itls also to be seer T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practic(, or workman. As can be seen from the factur cases on hand, engaging the respondents for continuous period of time on casual basis is rl labour practice attracting the provisions of Sr,r ID Act.- The learned Single Judge while relyinlr of the Apex Court, rightly held [hat the responr to regularization as directed in the imDuonr ( lgi.l:d singte Judge considered a[ the aspict; detail, in the proper perspective, which, in ou- does not warrant interference in these appeals.,, record that the :roached the law rtion also issued 89, 11.09.1992. egu larization oF that Section 25- ry any employer scenario of the ;uch a long and ,lhtng but u nfa ir t on 25-T of the ln the decisions ents are entltled orders, as the of the matter in considered view

21. Th 1 D o P 27 2 7 20 27 SN,J reDotted in 2O18t2)ALD oao 2a 2a tDa ra 16 and Dara 18 observed as under:- *16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of !994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time absorption/regularization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O, Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in llma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regu la rization/absorption exist. a nd G.o. Ms. No, 12. dated Therefore Act 2 of 199 1() )rL 1oo ,l.r n,\+ r', h ;}fla .lfh n 4 It is, t to take shelter Suoreme Court in Para 53 of its iudqment in Uma Devi's re. not oermissib! e for the case (su nder Act 2 of 199 and G.O. resoonde Ms. No.212. dated 22.4.1994, to deny reoularization to +h6 6ali criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the iudqment in Uma Devi's case (suora). c- ti acia/ m ia+adlrr llowarl rerit Gtra /

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2017, in OA No.1442 of 2OL4, on the file of the Tribunal is set askle and flra rarrif rra+ifirin resDon ents to consi er reoularisa ion of the se ices of the oe itioners aoai st the existino vacanctes of Work to their satisfvino rs and aoDoi nt them subi Ins ria laid dow in Para No.s 3 of the iudq ent in the cri vi's case (suora This oroc s must be co oleted Uma receiot of a coov of within two months f this order." ) mt he da lor,+i o i^ h 28 !\.,i

22. h n w.P N o its Judoment l !O in 1 of 2O19 i.u4 )ALD oaqe 37 r 4 a o , under "45. There is no dispute that petitioners hav: been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in alnr, ,st (3O) year"s of service by now. They have been given minimut r time_scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till i ate. ,ndent has not se (supra), as d undertaken a of dailv waoe ten ( 1O) vears Tribunals as on y :rification as to oainst va ( rnt oosts and I ,sts, and if so, whether eva re wo lno requlari ze

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowec the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st re:; I ondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of ;ervrces on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 16 and 21 of the Constitutic I of India; one-time basis I the oetitioners aoes from the lv shall not be :ercise shall be t: of receipt of co vof e ord

23. This Court oDines that r .I d ED res€ nt case, the _ in examinino 29 SN,J uest of the ltetitioner r reoul att petitioner's services, who is rarorkrn as full time sweeDer and further to consader his reouest to treat the temDorarv service of the Detition erin the last sweeDeras reoular one for orade pav with periodical increment revased from time to ll nrrrnt'lses bv o r nti no last ade oost off lt ti me r time from the date of aDDo ntment of the Det tioner, accordance to law,

24. This urt ooines that netitio nerrs entitled for consideration of oetit oner's case for orant of the relief as r ations of the ADex rti n v rtous iudome nts u r Divisi n Bench of s Corrrt in the -Iudo ents referred and extra above,

25. Takinq into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case' b) The submissions rnade by the learned counsel appearing on behatf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearang on behalfof the respondent Nos.4 & 5 30 s\..i c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various iudgments (referred to and extracted ab rve) and again enlisted below: ix2o2o) l SCC (L&S) (ai) 1990(2) Scc paqe 396 (iii) 2O2s rNsc 144- (iy) 2o24 LawSuit(sc) 12o9 (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scc247 (vii) (2013) 14scC 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Ontine SC t7g7 (ix) (2o1s) I SCc 26s (x) (2oL4) t scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32841 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xaii) (2006) 4 SCC I (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, page234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD pase 282 lxvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 The Division Bench order of this; d) Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.tg2 of 2OIO and 8S4 of 2o12 whire uproading the Judgment datc d o'.o9.2o1o passed in W.p.No.24377 ot 2OOt and C.C.ilo.48 of 2OOB (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 19,O9.2OL7 passed in W.p.No.272ll of 2OJ. , (referred to and extracted above), 3l SN,J f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 21.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l ol 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and w.P.No.23O57 ot 2019 (referred to and extracted above)' g) In the light of discussion and conclusaon as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the pr-esent order. The Writ t iti on the oeti s cted to out-fo h the reoularization of oetiti er's services- and also the laim tem rarv servlces of the e oetitioner to t reat t laim of the D titioner of th ioner in the last o r ade o st of SweeDer as reoular one r II ur ised fr.lm t amatoti e rom th f e dateof w ADD s Det intment of th ts, dulv enclosrnd a ner and all conseoue tial the rel evant documentsin e oetition w ithin a Derl af one (o )w1 kf rom the d t t o a h s shall examln e a onsider the sa e na r l,lfl u u h e )1 SN,J n 2 U a e D st n a 1 o1 s d the SUD me 1 t 4) scc Paqe L, 7 rtf oo7 d ted 2 1 of o D il te 234 and as ).o6.20 3. and ,l w n 2 t7 I h t is Court da 17 reoorted tn D e d I ivision Bench m t I u 2 2 21 4 I DA ed tn .:3057 f2lJ19 n o o A a f In 7 w ctL had attained f mt eda te of thi ki qtn to conFaderation the observataons and the lavtl taid down bv fe red toa nd u !n h d u u ! : f ra ed ab ve) and i DA rtac lar. DA t f eA u I n r order as to costs. No .53 of t2O t te of e ! nunicate the al! be no JJ SN,J Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in' this Writ Petltion, shall stand closed. SD/. M. NAGAMANI ASS TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER one fair copy to the Hon'ble Mrs Justice Su palli anda (for Her Ladyships Kind Peru ) To,

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

2. The Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. The District Collector, and Chairman of Selection Commiftee and Minimum Wages Committee, Yadadri-Bhongir Distric{.

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Yadadri-Bhongir District. 5. The Mandal Parishad Development ffircer, Bhongir Mandal' Yadadri-Bhongir District.

6. One CC to SRI CH.GANESH, Advocate. [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES ll, High Court for the State of Telangana. touTl

8. One CC to SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR GPPS. [OPUC] 9. 11 LR.Copies 10.The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. 1 1 . The Secretary, Advocates' Association Library' High Cou( Buildings, Hyderabad.

12.Two CD Copies. BSK TJ fp* HIGH COURT DATED:2210712025 ORDER WP.No.27091 of 2022 Ili Te ( o ._) q,1il26 z \1., \. .! 'r\- {)n \.- * rr:9 Jl ., :-- ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS J-*s 2+\>\'e