The High Court · 2025

Order

SRt CH.GANESH schoor. t J SN,J HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA ORDER: Heard sri ch' Ganesh, tearned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner, tearned Assistant Government Pleader for Services_f, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos'l to 3 & 6 to g and sri Katta pradeep Reddy, tearned standing counset appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5. 2 as under: ""'to issue an order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to decrare the action of the 6th respondent (Headmaster) in verbary terminating the services of the petitioner from April 2o2r based on impugned Memo dated 75.o4.202L of 7th respondent with P.oceedings Rc' No. 1g77/A2/2021, dt L3.07.2021 0f the Bth respondent without jurisdiction and competency as unjust, unfair, illegal & unconstitutionat for not paying legitimate and living wages as per article L4, L6,21, 39(D) and 43 0f our constitution with further direction to treat the services of the petitioner as regurar one in the rast grade services for all purpose from the date of appointment of the petitioner from time to time for working from 36 rong years in the contingent post by apprying the decision and principre I I Ilu t 4 SN,J laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs State of U.P. (2019 (1) SCC 516) followed by this Hon'ble Court \^/. P. No. 33936 of 2011 and Batch Cases (DB), dated 02.05.2018 along with W.A. No. 483 of 2O2L, dated 05. O8.202.L and principle laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.A.Nc, L254 of 2018 Apex Court dated 23.03.2018 to reckor contingent services of petitioner for computation of qualifying service to grant of pension gratuity and other retirernent benefits by periodical increments as revised from time to time with 100 o/o compensation as per principle laid by Ap:x Court in the case of Union of India Vs Avtar Chand in C.A.No. 3416- 3445 of 2010 and Batch Cases, dated 19. 02. 2OI9 (ALD 3 of 2OL9 SC 32) by applying the aforesaid princiltles and decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Divisirrn Benches under Article L4L of our Constitution by this Honble Court in the case of petitioner and pass..." 2 I al rnarl aar r naal rirtrr t { W 5 SN,J

4. Learned counsel appearinq on behalf of the oetitioner submits that the subject issue in the present case is squarelv covered by the order of this Court, dated O8.O9.2O1O passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 reoorted in

2O11( 1) ALD, Paoe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 1O.O6.2O13 and also order dated 19.O9.2O17 passed in W.P.No.27217 of 2017 reported in 2O18 (2) ALD Paoe 282 and also the order, dated 21.O4.202O oassed in W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 reported in 2O2O(4) ALD paoe 379. S I a=rnad nrliner anrrnca! lrrrra=rirra a n hahrlf rrf tha resoondent Nos.4 & 5 submits that the qrievance of the oetitioner as put-forth in the present writ petition had not been addressed to the respondents herein as on date and therefore, the oetitioner cannot comolain inaction on the part of respondents herein in considerino the grievance of the oetitioner and hence, the relief as oraved for bv the petitioner in the present wit oetition cannot be oranted and no Mandamus can be issued aoainst the resoondents hereunder as souoht for and the oetitioner may be directed to out-forth the petitioner's orievance as out- \ 6 o e e SN,J o of hesaid reD e th res n ents wo td co nsider e m tna rd nce to law, wtthin a reasonable Deri

5. Learned cou nsel ADD oft e tio er does not di outeth sal submts !on standino la Dea no onbehalfof Nos. 479,. 7 c urt inth iudqmentre f L others, at oara 36 held as under: ad bv the Iear ned the resDond nt in( o20)1 r h n "36. There are some of the employees who have not been re-gularized in spite of having rendered the serviies for 30_ 40 or more years whereas they have been superannuateO. As they have worked in the work_chargea eitiOtisnment, not against any particular project, theii services ought to havrs [ssn regularized under [he Gorernmeni instructions a_nd even as per the decision of this Court in- State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in ine said decision has laid down that in case servicei have Oeen rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be I:9ll1u.irud, of such. emptoyees. In the facts of the case, tno!;e employees who have worked for ten years or more sho.r.ld have been regularized. It would not'be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as others have been regularized, we direct tn-at their treated a.s a regular one. However, it is made clear that the,r shall not be entitled to claiming any dues o1 Jif"run." i:jl_"-S::. I'a.d tfr.ey been continued in service regutarty Detore attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be -serv-lces l 7 SN,J entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work-charoed establishment shall be counted as qualifyino service for purpose of pension."

8. The Aoex Court in the case of Dharwad District PWD Literate Dailv Wage Emplovees Association Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1990(2) SCC Paoe 396 laid orinciole that the State should not keep a oerson in temporarv or adhoc service for lono oeriod and have to treat such Dersons as reqular one.

9. Para No.53 of the of the iudqment of the Apex Court in the State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi, dated 1O.O4.2OO6 reported in (2OO6) 4 SCC 1 is extracted hereunder:- "53. One asoect needs to be clarified. There mav be cases where irreoular appointments (not illeqal apoointments) as exolained in S.V. Naravanapoa 11967 (1) SCR 1281, R.N. Nanjundapoa t1972 (1) SCC 4O9I and B.N. Naqaraian 11979 (4) SCC 5O7'l and referred to in para 15 above, of dulv oualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts miqht have been made and the emplovees have continued to work for ten vears or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals' The ouestion of reqularizatiqn of the services of such the lioht of the princioles settled bv this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the lioht of this iudqment. In that context, the Union of India, the \ \ 8 n h lr ch ir a x.ai SN,J -ti in dulv who have worked fo ten vears or more Wtioned posts but no fsgglar recruatments a vacan saxetioned in cases wher€ are beino now emol motion within six months from this date. ..._ to be filled uo, temoorarv emolovees or dailv waoers ss must be set in The D

10. The iudoment of the Apex Court dated 2O.12 .2024, reported in 2O24 LawSuit( sc) 1209 i Jaqqo Anita and clhers J. Union of India and others. and the relevant oaraoraoh Nos.12, 13, 24, 26, 27 and 28 are extracted hereunder: "12. Despate being labelled as "part-time workersr" the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous bas;is 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, regutar, and akin to the responsibilitaes typacally associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other perrsonnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the inclispensable nature of their work.

13. ts that these were not reeular oosts lacks merit, as by the resoond The clai epellants was perennaal and fundamental to @The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their I / I : 9 SN,J classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subseqtrent 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 j udgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d LLBT (9th Cir. 1 996)l serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of miscla ssifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certa in workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Co urt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law e mployees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasi ngly adopted the employees or independent contractors as a m eans of avoiding paym ent of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment u nderscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, ra ther than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employmen t status and corresponding rights and benefits. & ctice of hiring tempo

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the*g'actice of backdoor entries and ensure appointm& adhered to constitutionar principles, it is regretHble that its principles are 9ft91 misinterpreted or misapptied t; deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish-betweeh',illegal,, appointments. "irregular,,

1.0 SN,J \ teqorica!lv held th It emolovees in lrreo lar aoooin ents, who were enoa qed in dulv sanctioned oosts and had served lirc-Oeasgre. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted lvhen institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherrence to procedural formalities. Government deperrtments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment,s explicit ackrrowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective aoolication distorts the iudoment's soirit and ouroose. effectivelv weaoonizino it aqainst emolovees who have rendered indisoensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization,s func:tioning, not only contravenes international labc'ur standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee monale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigat-on, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. Thas approach aligns with internataonal . standards and sets a pos;itive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overalt betterment of labour practices in the country. , ',,} r" 11 SN,J

28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 .LO.2O1B are quashed; ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duty forthwith and their services regularised forthwith. However, the appellants shall not be entitled oecuniarv benefits/back waoes for the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same r oost- counted for retiral benefits."

11. The Judoment of the Aoex Court dated 31.O1.2O25 rcoOrted in 2O25 INSC 144 in ..SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD", in oarticular, the relevant oara Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder: "15. It is manifest that the Aopellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several vears, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Emnl records- desoite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-esta"hlished labour iurisprudence. Indian labour law stronolv disfavors peroetual daily-waoe or contractual enqagements in r's failure to furnish t2 SN,J r M w carc mstances where the w rkiso ermane ono orno municioa I reouire ments cannot be ar after vear ismissed summarilvas disoens ble, icula rlv in the absence of a oen ine contractor aSle=gment._At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite .'temporary,, emprleymsrl practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following partrg ra phs: "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 governmental operations. 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: / / l3 SN,J r'! el-" n when trrrlr identical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. o Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively reptacing 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 decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, eipecially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances." ""i, ,.tt . : l , trlIili ,t t4 SN,J

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inabil ty to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it orrlered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left irr 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 afforcl them continuity of service or meaningful back wages comnrensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record L7. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discorrtinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, L947, and that they were enoaqed in do n,ot absolve the Emolover of statutorv oblioations bureaucratic limitations cannot trump the leoitimate / / Y. t5 SN,J daily-waqe enqaqement wifltout cortinritv o. meaninqful back waqes. is hereby set aside with the followinq directions: I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen,s services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.p. Industrial Disputes Act, t947, 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 period of absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuity of service and all consequential benefits. such as senioritv and III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. months from the date of reinstatement, dulv considerinq the fact that thev have performed perennial municioal duties akin to permanent SN,J \

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

12. urt ina iudo ent reD rted in( o17 1 -conctiaia, "54 "The Futt Bench of the H-igh court, whire adjudicating upon the above controversy had i'iat temporary employees were not entitred'to the minimum of thte regurar pay_ scate, merery for the reason, that the activitiei carried on by dailr-wagers and regurar emproyaies were simirar. The fuil bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary emptoyees, who fe, in either of the two exceptions, were herd entitte'a b wages at the minimum of the pay-scare drawn by regitai iiptoyues. The exceptions recorded by the fult bench'or ini nu'h''court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:_ --" "(1) A daity wager, ad hoc or contractuar appointee against the regurar sanctioned posts, ii appointed after undergoing a serection process'based ,poi-ruirress and equatitv of .opportunity to art -othei- "ri;i;i"' candidates, shail be entitred to minimum of tne regu,ra'i pry scare from the date of engagement. / / L / dJ" l7 SN,J long period i,e. for 70 years such daily wagers ad hoi or iontractuat appointees shail be entitled to illo*-rn."t on th" ,ttu^Otion th't *o'k of perennial nature is available and having worked fqr tu"htonrO"riodofti^",'"ouittbl"'inhtit fo' .r"ut"d ii regularization if any mav have to be considered of ,",tont' Th"i"l'i* "u"h ".t"rory (3)Intheevent,aclaimismadeforminimumpayscale aftermorethanthreeyearsandtwomonthsof 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 judoment of the Apex Court reDorted in 2O1O(9) scc 247 between: state of Karnataka and others v M.L.Kesari ancl others, in oarticular, paras 4 to 9 reacls as under: 4, 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 regularization or re- courts cannot direct their absorption, engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Coui in exercise of iurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment nia been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further hetd that a temporary, contractualt casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal rigMg,be made permanent uniess he had been appointed in terffiff$he relevant rules or in adherence of Articles-74 and 16 of tffffonstitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : ' t8 SN,J ca 's wh ular aDDoint, enfs (,not a , I lioht of the orinci, "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to t:he general principles against ' regularization, enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are futfitted : (i) 'rhe employee concerned should have worked for lO years or rTorg in d.uly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunat. In other words, the Stale Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntariiy and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee shoutd not be ittegal, 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 quatifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. Ejut where the person e.mployed possessed the prescribed qualifications and wa:; working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected )' w l9 SN,J without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. (iiil ltmadevi casts a duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentality. to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten vears without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of coutts or tribunals. as a one-time measure. Umadevi. directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 7O.4.20O6).

6. The term 'one-time measLtre' 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 all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intenrention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verifiation as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess fhe requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in lJmadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand, some Govennment departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily- wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exerci* in terms of para 5i of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded 20 SN,J only when all the emptoyees who are entitled to be considered in t trms of Para 53 of tJmadevi, are so considered. b Dra emD vrno DC on dailv- wade/ad- FEqulariza srx months of I , !!-ssulte!

9. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in tJmadevi. The Appeilant (Zita panciayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of rel|ularization within six months of the decision in lJmadevi or thereafter.

70. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cages of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Urnadevi, is that the Zila panchayat, Gaiag should now un'dertake an exercise within six months, a geierat one_ time re?ularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zita eanchayat and if sa whether such employees (inctuding the respondents) futfi the requirements mentioned in para 5i of lJmadbvi. It they tultill them, their senrices have to be regularized. If such an exercise hits already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases / 2t SN,J of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of 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. t4. and others v. State of Punjab reported in (2O13) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively 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 contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also refused to w 22 SN,J m TI 'l o I n 'I n I I ! i 23 SN,J Nellore Municioal Corporation Reo.bv its Commissioner, (7) We find it difficult to accept the reasoning'adopted by the High Court. The right of the appellants to seek regularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994. The appellant have been in service of the first resoondent not only prior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subsequent to the issue of G.O. till today. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants.

8. 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 circumstance, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' services be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 480.

16. SCC 265, the Supreme Court held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure securitv of 24 SN,J Government and their instrumentalities for more than ten Int at case molovee was workino for 29 v earlier view exDressed deici ton a DDTOV Thi rs. M.L. Kesari e racted a

17. InS te of Jarkha dv (20 4)7 scc 2 3, si mal Prasad reDo eww s tak nbv the Suoreme Court and it was held as foltows : w Q I tnturfered with bv this Cou

18. The Judgment of this Court dated 06.12.2022 pirssed in W.p.No.2l6O2 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 in W.A.No.937 ot 2O2Z dated 1O.10.2023 and atso c,onfirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLp No.32847 of 2C.24. GF# ' *T-s*' ,/. \ I 4s SN,J

19. 20 "100. The High Courts exercisi n9 their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ndia, not only have the power to issue a writ of man da mus or in the nature of mandamus, ofI consideration. 101' In all such cases,. the High court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directioris to compet perrormance in an appropriate and rawfut manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a pubtic authority.,, "Further, it is manifest from the materiat on record that the services of the simitarry.prgced persons who approached the raw c-o1rts were regurarizeg. ye abperant-corporation arso issued various office orders/circutars ilrSl^Zq.iri98x 11.09. Lss2, 06.10.2007 and ratest bein! i.'z.zoos -r;-;Ararization casual/contract emproyees, tt'i, uiro to be seen that section 25_ T of the ID Act p.ot',iuits ,nr.iirutou.r practice by any emproyer or workman. As can be seen from the factuat-scena.io of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for such a tong and 26 SN,J continuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but unfair labc,ur practice attracting the provisions of section 25-T of the ID r\ct. The learned Singre Judge while relying on the decisions of tlre Apex court, rightly held that the resporidents are entiUed to regularization as directed in the impugned orders, as the learned single Judge consicered all the asp6cts oi tnu matter in det;ril, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals.,,

21. observed as under:- 2 of L994 and G "16,. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article L4t of the It is noteworthy that by the time the Corrstitution of India judgment in tJma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the prc visions of Act .O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regula rization and absorption of f persons, who entered service th rough back doors by giving a go.-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointme nts to pul:lic posts, consciously ordered one-time ab:;orption/reg ularization of those, who were working for a pe'iod of not Iess than 10 years. It has given directions in this re(lard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be co nscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.,f. Ms. No.212, dated ZZ.4.Lgg4 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 St,ate enactments regularization/absorption exist. banning J 27 SN,J

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order dated 2 in OA No.L442 of.2OL4, on the file of the Tribunal is

7.6.2017, set aside this order,"

22. "45' There is no dia,f" that petitioners have been working on daily wage since rsiso ana nave put in armost (30) years of service by now. alu, h.ave been given minimum time-scare from the year 2000. They have been- continuousry working without any court orders in their favour from 1gg0 tiil date.

50. Acco rdingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8 .2OL9 passed by the lst dent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one- time basis a re declared as illegal, arbitra ry and violative of Articles 14, the Constitution of India 16 and 2L of respon I I 28 SN,J cop\, of the order."

23. service of the Detitioner in the last qrade Dost of full time accordance to law.

24. and extracted above. ) j 29 SN,J 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 No.4 on record. c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: i)(202o) I scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2(J24 LawSuit(SC) 1209 (v) (2017) 1 scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14sCC 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2O24 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2OLL (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 (xvii) SCC ONLINE SC l73s d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O and 854 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment n,., datEffi8.os.201o { 30 SN,J passed in W.P.No.2437t ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), e) Thr: Division Bench order of this Court dated L9.O9.21t17 passed in W.p.No.272L7 ol 2017 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 21.O4.2A2O passed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23OS7 ol 2O!9 (referred to and extracted above). g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arraved at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 ofthe present order. The Writ P ition i allowed, the Detition ris e Detit oner to treat the temoorary se f_egdArization of oetationer's services, and atso the ctaam ices of the petitioner in the last orade oost of Sweeoer as reqular one ll ourooses bv orantino Iast oradeDavw h oeri ised from ti etoti !ncrements aBreintment of tne oetitl I f r' e from the dateof w 3l SN,J I \ 32 SN,J order as to costs. Mi:;cellaneous petitions, if ofly, Petition, shall stand closed. pending in this Writ //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. BHAVANI SWAMY REGISTRAR One fair copy to the HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE (For His Lordship's Kind

1. The Prirrcipal Secretary, Education Department, To of Telangana at Hyderabad. ECTION OFFICER NANDA Secretariat, State

2. The Prl. Secretary to Govemment, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Departnrent, Telangana Secretariat, Hyd era bad

3. The District Educational Officer, Warangal District, TS. 4. The chref Executive officer, zilla Prala Parishad, warangal District. 5. The Mandal Parishad Development officer, Mulugu Mandal, warangal

6. The Heradmaster, ZP High school, Mallampalli, Mulugu Mandal, Warangat District, T.S. District, T.S.

7. The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Govt. of Telangana, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

8. The Crlmmissioner of School Education Department, Telephone Bhavan Road, {iaifabad, Hyderabad.

9. 11 L.R. Copies. 10.The Urder secretary, Union of lndia, tt/inistry of Law, Justice and company Affairc, New Delhi.

11.The secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High court Buildin,3s, Hyderabad.

12.Two Ctls to GP FOR SERVICES-|, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hydererbad IOUTI

13.One Cr3 to SRI CH.GANESH, Advocate IOPUCI 14. One C,3 to SRI KATTA PRADEEP REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) 15.Two CD Copies SA BN M/ t_ / B a l' .t HIGH COURT DATED: ZZ\OT\2O2S C.C. TODAY i tl') * ii-iE 5 i\ ( t\. ? 0 APff lrJ?fi '*:- i ORDER WP.No.26Z15 of 2OZ2 ALLOWING THE W.P WTHOUT COSTS. ,,1 10r