Arelli EIIamma v. 1. The State of Telangana

2011(1) ALD, Paqe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 201O, dated 10.06.2013 and also order, dated 19.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2017 reDorted in 2O18 (2) ALD Paqe 282 and also the order, dated 21.O4.202O passed in W.P.No.23Il57 of 2OL9 reported in 2O2O(4) ALD Paqe 379.

5. Learned standinq counsel appearinq on behalf of the resoondent No.4 submits that the orievance of the titioner s ut-f hin h re n Wr Peti d been addressed to the respondents herein as on date and therefore. the oetitioner cannot comolain inaction on the oart of respondents herein in considerjnq the qrievance of the Detitioner and hence the relief as Draved for bv the petitioner in the oresent Wit oetition cannot be qranted and no Mandamus can be issued aqainst the respondents hereunder as souqht for and the oetitioner mav be directed 6 \F \:, . SN,J wP 26733 2022 to Dut-forth the oetition er's 'q rievanceasD ut-fo rth in the r en Wri P itio b wa ofa s to the re on nts h re en ti t er tn_an cetPt of the said st e th s tn accord a nce to law, within a rea son able oeriod.

6. Learn edco unse I aooea rtnqo nbehalf of the petitio ner d esnot disoutethe sa idsubm issionm ade bv the s ndin ear n eh lf of he res on ent sei a n No.4

7. The A Dex Co urt in thei udq ment reDorted in( 2020) 1 scc ( L&S) in Pr m Sino hv st teofU ttar Pr desha nd a a 3 hel a un er: "36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered tne seJJes for:O_ -r-upu-rlnnrut"O. 40 or more years whereas tfrey nave leen As they have worked in rhe work-chu.s"O"Jiiu;,rr,runt, not against any particular project, tneii servicei ought to have been regularized under lhe cou".nrlnt listructions a_nd even as per the decision of tnis Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This a;;; in trre saio decrsion has taid down thai in case ;";i;; have been rende,red for more than ten years without the cover of the -tn" Court's order, as one-timu rn"urr.u,- ,I.ri.", O" regularized, of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked fot. tun y"u.r'or more sholl! h9,ve been regularizet. lt wouia- not'i"e regulate them for consideration of regulariiation !. otnu., have been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is male-lleli that tney shall not be entitled to ctaiming i"V Or", "i ai#"rence in wages had they been continued- in service r-"griurfy O"fo." "proper 7 SN,J wP 26733 2022 lbe entitled attaining the age of superannuatio d from the to receive the pension as if theY b them oht from t e dav thev entered the work- n. They shal have retire es rend ishmen ed es ment s r Duroose of oensi on. " servlce e count The ADex Court in the case of Dha rwad District PWD 8 Literate DailY Waqe Emolovees Association Vs. State of Ka rnataka reoorted in 1 990(2) SCC Paqe 39 6 laid principle rv or c servlce for lonq oeriod and have to treat su ch erson in tem ora n t kee shou! Derso ns as reqular one.

9. Para No.53 of t e ofthei doment of the ADex Court in the State of K rnataka and others Vs Umadevi, dated 10.04. 2006 reDo d in (2O06) 4 SCC 1 is ext acted hereu nd er:- '53. One asoect needs to be clarified. There mavbe cases where irreoular a ooointmen ts (not il leoal ADDOI ntments) as exolain ed in S.V. Narava ADDA 1a967 (1) SCR 1 28]. R.N. aniundaoo a 1t972 (l ) scc 19 79 (4 scc 507I and 4O9l and B.N. Na oa rala n r referred to in oara 15 bove, of dulv oua lified Dersons t have been in dulv sanctioned vaca nt Dosts mi made and the em D lovees have conti n ued to work for ten vears or more but witho ut the interventi nof orders of the courtsoroftr ibunals. The ouesti on of reoularization of the services of such emolove es mav have to be con idered on merits in the liq ht of the o h b and i Co li ht ion of I ud me les s hat conte v 8 SN,J wP 26'733 2022 - Governments and their instrumentalities should take steDs to reoularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irreoularlv aDpointed, who have worked for ten vears or more in dulv sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that reqular recruitments are undertaken to fil! those vacant sanctioned Dosts that requi re to be filled uo. in cases where temDora ry emDloyees or dailv waqers are beino now em ploved. The process must be set in motion with n stx mo ths from this date. ....

10. The iudqment of the Apex Court d ated 2O.L2.2O24, reoorted in 2O24 LawSuit(S C) 1209 in Jaooo Anita and others v. U nl n of India and others, and the relevant DaraqraDh Nos.12, L3, 24, 26, 27 and 28 are extracted hereu nd er: "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 responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. mb the ondents that th

13. not reqular posts lad<E med!, ae the nature of the work performed bv the appellants was Derennial and fundamental to the functionino oft he offices. The recu rrin s nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how -7.' 9 SN,J wP 26733 2022 their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits . It hiqh I io hts role in rectifvinq such miscl ssifications and ensuri no that w rkers receive fair treatment. i ud icia rv's

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" apPointments. teooricallv held that emolovees Itc irreoular a ooointments who were en aoed in "irreg ular" l0 \'- SN.J wP 267i3 2022 a a o v ar a on s sa cti n er ed ntin uouslvfo r morethan ten earsshoul d bec nsi e df r e- m mea sure.H owever, the laudable inten t of the judgment is being subverted when institu tions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of em ployees, even in ca ses where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (su pra) to argue that no vested right to regula rizatio n exists for temporary overlooking the em p loyees, judg ment's explicit ackn ow ledg m ent oF cases where rs appropriate regularization T lss elective AD plicatron distortst e ludqment'ss trtta d D rpose, effec tivelv weAD n,ztno ita atn st e re d re s rvt e over ec e s d h

27. In light oF these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for. lou"_runt departments to lead by example in providing fair and srabte emptoyment. engaging ;;;k;;';^ . temporary basis for extendel "p"iioJr, 'iriu.iutty when their roles are integral to'tfre orgai-i;ion,s functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but atso uxposes'in" to legat chalenges and undermin.1"J.piov"" ".gu.l'.r,"" morale. By ensurlng fair p_ra ctices, govern ment in stitutions "mp-l-oiment .,.r r"" the burden of unnecessary litigation, p.oiot. ""'n job_. security, and uphold d;-;;;;.i;i., o, justice and fairness that tfrev aie-mI.ii to embody. This approach atigns--'with internationat standaijs -rl-tio*, ";; "";;';"0o",',,r" precedent for the Drivate sector to thereby contributing to the overail betterment of labour practices i-n tt " 28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeats are alowed. The i;;u;;;j ";;;u.. passed by the High Court and the friOlLnit ui" ,u, aside and the original apptication is af fo*eO-iJ tne following extent: ."rnt. - w 1l SN,J wP 26'733 2022 i. The termination 27.10.2078 are quashed; orders dated The appellants shall be taken . dutv forthwith and their back on services reqularised forthwith, However, the appellants shall not be ecu n la a benefits/back waqes for the oeriod thev have not worked for but would be entitled to continuitv of services for the said oeriod and the same would be counted for their post-retiral benefits."

11. The Judqment of the Ap reDorted in 2025 INSC 144 i NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD", in oarticular. the relevant Court dated 31.01.2025 *SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v. ar Nos.15 to 19 are e s '15. It is manifest that t e Aooellant Workmen ervices over several continuouslv rendered th etr vears, sometimes sDannan more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not oroduced in full, the Emolover's failure to fur ish such records-despite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-established labo ur I urisorudence. Ind ia n nolv disfavors oeroetual dailv-wa oe or hbour law st contractual e oaoements in circumstance s where the work is oer anent in nature. Morallv and leoallv, workers who fulfil onooino municioal reouirements vear after v ar cannot be dismissed ummarilv as rticularlv in the absence of a qenuine disoensable, contractor aqreement. At this juncture, it would be wP 26't)3 2022 Y SN.J 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 pa rag 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 preca rious 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 shoft-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: o Misuse of "Temoorarv" Labels: Emo lovees at is and nteoral to the fun ionino of an institution "contractual," even when their loyees. Such f m isclassification work rs e diqnit , securitv, and benefits that reqular "temoorarv" r deprives r work labelled currtn a ed e g ---.6EE5 l3 SN,J wP 26733 2022 are entitled to identic I tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. . Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterpafts, despite their contributions being equally significant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer reg ula r employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and 14 SN,J wP 26',733 2022 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 Disputes Act, 7947, and that essential, Derenn ial duties, these workers cannotbe rele qated t Deroetual u ncerta intv.wh ile conce rns of mun icioal budqet an recruit ent ru les merit consid er tion, such concerns do not absolve the Emo lover of statutorv obl iqations or neo ate eq uitable entitlements. Indeed, bur trumD the leqitim te riohtsof ations ca n not workmen who ha ve serv contin uouslv indef cto reo ular roles for a extended oeriod. the were enqao comoli nce wit

18. The i mouoned order of the ioh Court, to the extent th dailv-waoe meaninqful ba ck waqes, is herebv set aside with the follo inq di rections: confine the Ao oellant Workm ntofu enoa ement without co ntinuitv 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 l5 SN,J wP 26733 2022 as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire oeriod of absence (from the date of termination unti! actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuitv of service and all consequential benefits, such as senioritv and elioibilitv for oromotions. if anv. III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50yo 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. li.rf IV. The Respondent Emolover is directed to initiate a fair and transDarent Drocess for reoularizinq the Aooell nt Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, dulv considerinq the fact th t thev have oerformed ct al duties akin to ln re ula rization the Em lo e i rrrnn se educational o rit rnaadrrrrl criteraa retroactivelv if uch reouirements were never applied to the Apoellant Workmen or to similarlv situated reqular emolovees in the oast. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exast or are re uired, the Resoondent Emolover shall exoedite all necessarv adminastrati ve Drocesses to ensure lonqtime e olovees are not indefinitel v retained ao es contrarv to statutorv and on dailv equitable norms. n

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." I l6 SN,J wP 26133 2022 L2. The Suprem Aoex Court in a iudqment re orted in (2Ot7 )1 nd othe svs e Cou rt Cases 148, in State of Punia Jaqiit Sinqh (Ll(2 )(3), of the said iudomen t observedasu d er: others at Paras 54 and its sub-paras "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating that temporary upon the above controversy had concluded, - eimployees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay' scale,'merely for the reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers' and regutar emptoyees were similar. The full bench howevel 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 reqular employees' The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:- "( 1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a seliction process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to atl other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. riod i.e. for 70 ractua ut if dailv waoers ad hoc or cont their ser-lfrces ete a (2) reoular ADDO intees are not aD ointed aoainst it,ed sanctioned Dosts an bv the Sfate continuouslv, with notional brea Gove ment or its instrumentalities for a su c'ient mintmum of the reoular oav scale without anv rk of oe nnial e assumD ion that rked for such lonq nature is available and ha vtnat t c reaulariza tion, if nces on f tim of oersons Their claim cateoo anv, mav have to be cons ered se of leoallv oermissible scheme, ratelv in ilv wao rs. such ,n It e (3) In the event, a claim 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 contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months"' 17 SN,J wP 26733 2022

13. The iudoment of the Aoex Court'reoorted in 20 10(9) S,CC 247 bet een: State of Karnataka and others v M.L.Kesari and others, in oa icular. oaras 4 to 9 reads as u nder: re orted CC1 .In that ca

4. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umade vi was rendered n Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re- engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the coutts 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 Coutt further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : "s3. one asnect nee,ds to be clarified There maw he (not illeoal cases where irreouler eDDointments aDDOint, ents ) as exolained in S.V, Nara NADDA 7 7 scR 724 an un o and B.N. N 7979 and referred to in Dara 75 above. of ulv oualified n tioned v2?r,'l been ma interuent,'ion of orders of the co urts or of and the emolo vees have continued to ten vears or more but wi out the 'ribunals. ^^ci< mt estion of re ma hd of the ces o the lisht of the orincioles vereferred to cases a fn fha? it nla ment. alav* ftled bv this Cou,t in the nd in the lisht of this nian nf lnd i, ?ha -i, 18 SN,J wP 26733 2022 D trre u instrumen talities State Govern ments and ular. ze ,-s ao ne-tim e -should tak.e s st who have worked for ten vears or more tn dulv courts or of tribunals and should further e o n tu re un vaca t sanctioned Dosts at reouire to be filled uo, tn ca es where mDorarv emolovees or dailv are beino now em Dlo ved. The Drocess m usf be set In motion within srx man ths from this a te. r a "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principtes against ' regularization' enunciated in t)madevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (i) The emptoyee concerned should have worked for 70 years or iore 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 instrumentatity 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, even if irregutar. Where the appointments are not made or continued againit sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments 'will be considered to be itlegat- 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 competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. the con (iii ) Umadevi c,asts a dutv uDon ke fcns to reo ularize nt or tn rument,'ali Go ver,nme the services of those ir,'reoularlv aoD inted emolo had served for m re than ten vears with out the bene tor rts or that such o e-ttme onths from iha e measure. U adevi, dire tion wifhi ust be set one-tI date of its decision (rendered on 7O.4 .2o()6). 6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and m ord ls. a s l9 SN,J wP 26733 2022 tribunals and subject them to-a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several depaftments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the 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 coutts or tribunals. If any employer had held 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 all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered. 8. The obiect behind the said direction n Dara 53 of Umadevi s two- fold. First i,'s to ensure that th ose who ore than ten vears of con nuous serutce have out in of courts or tection of anv interim orde without the D the date of decision in madevi was trihunets. be ularization in view of their rendered, are considered for deDertments / instrumentelities do not oractice ofe mnlovino al for ',etsons etuete the eilv-waoe d- on the oround that thev h ve served for reoularize th more tha ten vears. thereb defeatino the con titutional atino to recrui ent and or statu Drovrsrons The t. f ,re n ,

70.4.2006 fthe date of decision in llmadevi) without the rotection of m order of a vacant Dosts. aossessino the reouisite qualification, are 20 SN,J wP 26733 2022 entitled to be considered fot reqularization. The fact that the emplover has Dot undertaken such exercise of reqularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exerc.ise was undertaken onlv in reqard to a limited few, wjll Dot disentitle such emolovees, h the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure. rt h to be considered ti, ntn ulariz, r

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

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with Iaw. The only fufther direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/ad- hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 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.

14. In the iudo ment of the ADex Court in Nihal Sinoh and others v. State of Puniab reoorted in (2013) 14 SCC 6s. 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 & 2i SN,J wP 26733 2022 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 arbatrary. It also refused to accept the de'lence that there were no sanctioned posts and so there was iustification for the State to utilise servlces ollarqe number of people like the aooellants for decades. It held that "sanctioned posts do not fall from heaven" and that the State has to create them by a conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment of need. Referrinq to Umadevi, it held that the aopellants before them were not arbitrarilv chosen. their initia! apoointment v[as not an Areqular' appointment as it had been made in accordance with the statutorv procedure b heP Ii Ac 1861 n s cauat !e teard to say that thev are not entitled to be absorbed into the servlces of the State on permanentbasis accordin h tr ointmen SN,J wP 26733 2022 .E inst anv s ioned posts created bv tem DOra rv and not a a the State. It w hel beco e a lice cef tha he m inU ade ita nb tea d its ities and the Gove me ofP ab nor those publ c sec rnconsistent wit or Ba ks ca n cont lnue such a Drac rce their obliqa ion to functiontna ccorda nce with the Constitutron.

15. The u me oft A ex Cou re o 15 SC Online Sc L79 Muni cioa I 7 between B. Sri niv asul u and others v N ello re Co rooration Reo.bv its Commissroner, Nellore Di str ct A hra P desh hers ln a ra 7 ndSr und r (7) h 1 n Oody is obliged by the G.O 212(supra)' Inspite mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for al without regularising the service of the appellants to extract work from the appellants. of the above most 20 Years and continued In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above 8. mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunat belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified' In the iiiru*ttunr"t, the appeal is atlowed modifying the order under regularised ipp"at Oy directing that the appellants' services .be from ihe date of their completing their five year ii'tn continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Cottei,ctir/Cnairperson & Others vs. M'L Singh & Ors' 2009 (B) scc 480. "ff"rt ".7 23 SN,I wP 26733 2022 'of 5 A 20 Ra

16. eS Co rt held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegat, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and emolovme nt of those Derso ns whohad serv ed the State ir ins rume talities for more than ten Governm ent a d the e Th a e r e e s K extracted above. 7 201 v nS teo Jar 7 cc 223 Court a nd it w s heldas ollow s slml rv w Su Dreme s b n f s I m t t slv t'here re- t e leoal ori ciole laid down b o U Ka v, e Um n co t'in ,s L 73 D s t d 53 e , o h with bv this Court."

14. The Judgment of this Court dated O6'L2'2O22 passed in W.P.No.27602 of 2O19 which pertains to / 21 SN,J \N? 2673i 2022 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 2O23 dated 10.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated

09.O8.2O24 in SLP No.32847 ot 2O24.

19. The iudqment of the Apex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 and in particular para Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows: "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are duty-bound to exercise such oower, where the Government or a oublic authoritv has failed to exercise or has wronqlv exercised discretion conferred upon it by a statute, or a rule, or a policv decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide, or on irrelevant consid eratio n.

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

20. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment dated

10.06.2013 Dassed in W.A. 7 2 of 2O1O and 854 of 2O12 while It D d o the Judo ment dated O8.O9.2O1O l \ l.; irffi*'wtlt'''t' 25 SN,J wP 26'ti3 2022 w.P 2 77 2 n c 4 o 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 appella nt-Corporation also issued various office orders/circula rs dated 20'12'1989' 11'09'1992' 06.10.2007 and latest being 4'7'2009 for regularization -of casuaflcontract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25-T oi tf,"'f O 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 p"iioa oi time on casual basis is nothing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions.of Section 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Singte-Judge while relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, rightiy heldlnat the respondents are entitled to ilgutarizatlon as directed in the impugned orders' as the learned ti"gl" lrdg" considered all the aspects of the matter in detail' in the proper perspective, which, in our- considered view does not warranL interference in these appeals'" 2,-. The Be h of t is Co rti tsJ m .o9 oL7 P.N .272 7of 18 A a 2 2 ar 16 d t7 1 o u nder:- " 16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is Article .141 of the Oi"Jing throughout the country under . coniti[rtion oi tndia. It is noteworthy that by the time the ii,ao-ent in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered' the ;;;iitj;"; of Act 2 of 1ee4 and G'o' Ms' No'212' dated \i.i.tggq, were in existence' The Supreme Court' while J"norn.ini the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, viho entered service through back doors by giving a go- [v" i"ih" due procedure prescribed for.appointments to public p6itt, .ont.iorsiy ordered ior one-time absorption/reg ula rization not less than 10 ;i th;;. *ho *"." working for a period of y.uit. fi has given directions in this regard to all the State bovernments u-r,d ulto Union of India ' The Supreme Court is JLr."O to be conscious of various State enactments such as iJ z of 1994 and executive orders such as G'o' Ms' No'212' Aii"i zz.q.s94, while giving directions in Para No'53 of the . 26 SN,J \,YP 26'133 2022 -'r judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning reg u la rizatio n/a bsorption exist. Therefore. Act 2 of 1994 and G. O. Ms. No.212, d ated 22,4.1994. do not whittle down the width and the iu oment in Maniula Bashini's frri6-+ rrri+ .rac I f a h reme cou nts to tak o ra 53 of er under d ment in m Devi's case s ermissible for the res of 1994 an to en reoulariz tion to the oetitio ners, who have. a d mitted lv- satisfie dth ec f iteria la d down Para No .53 of the O. Ms. No.2

22.4.19 d men tn Devi's case su ra ) d ons issued

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2017, in OA No,1442 of 20t4, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the wr tDe tition is al lowe withth e direction to the resDon dents to consi er reoularisation of the se ices of tt hem subtect to thetr sat I nsneat ors and a ino t riteria I case ( su ora ). This orocess must be co Dleted Devi's wtthi n two months ftom the date of receiot of a coDv of this order." in Para N s e tin l)Drl v e h

22. he Division ch of this in it ent da 2L.O4. O2O oassed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 20 9 and W.P.No .23057 of 2019 reDorted in 20 2O(4)ALD oao 379 at Daras 45, 48 and oara 50 observed a s under:- "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date. 48. It is not known whv the 1st oninU followed ex olai ned in M.L. Kesari's ca one-time exercise o emolovee who had worked wtthou 10 .4.2 oo5an respondent as not upra) and und ertaken a reparinq the list of dail waoe re than ten ( 1O) vears he intervention of t e Courts and Tribu als as on ification as to iect them toaD vi's c d sub I . -. : r,,- * -*.*..!.t, '{{Eagffi&&r 27 n a for th SN,J wP:26733 2022 t d h reoularize their services. u

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the im pugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the lst respondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one-time basis are declared as ill egal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

23. T s ln s in th t cas e s n n r requestof the oetitioner for req ularizat on ofDetitione 's t etr ut c e ho is wo ki s co nst er reo ues he petition e s e er as e r lce fu rthert serviceo c f m tm on n nt w e to treatt he em ora rv he last orade D st of o e b r s t r e f th d e t n ev e t of h e da ce o w

24. T is Co rto t t e r c st era to of e r' ca f r f ti ed r s r! e n Wri P titi n b rv tio s f h A ex Co v rt s d e EtGr 1 : I I I I I ..:.. (r ferredto and ext Divisi onB en ch of thisC racted SN,J wP 26'133 2022 bove) and the view of the a ourt in the Jud qme nts referred to a ex act dab ve. 25" Takin q into c nsiderati on:- 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' c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: i)(2o2o) 1 SCC (L&S) (ii) 1990(2) scc Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 Lawsuit(sc) 12o9 (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 2010(9) sCc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (2o1s) I Scc 265 (x) (2014) 7 scc223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O SuPreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 Scc 1 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD Page 282 (xvi) 2020(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 ffiA-!*Eir*ffiIIT5I.'..I:: :lli) )9 SN,J wP 26733 2022 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dated o8.O9.2010 passed in W.P.No.2 4377 ol 2007 and C.C.No.48 of 20O8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated L9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.272l7 of 2OL7 (reterred 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 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2Ot9 (referred to and extracted above). S) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos,4 to 24 of the present order. The Writ Petition is allow the oetitioner is directed -forth the of the eti r rre ula r ner's ser and also the f treat the temDorarv servlces of the oetitioner i the last qrade post of Sweeper as reoular on e for all ouro ses bv o rantin o last orade oav with oeriodical i ncrements revised from tim to time from the date of aooointm nt of the etitio a!! conse lb nefits n losin the relevant documents in suooort f oetitioner's ca se as SN,J wP 26733 2022 III|FFI Yqc}t5 q Dut-forth in the Dresent writ petition, within a Deriod of one ( 01 ) week from the date of receiDt of coov of the order and the resDondents shall examine a d consider the same in accord ance to law, in conformitv with principles of natural iustice bv orovidino an oooortuni tv of oersonal hearino to the Detitioner, in terms of orders passed bv the Suoreme Court i n Uma Devi's case reDorted in 2006(4) SCC Paoe 1. the iudqment oassed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 dated O8. 09.2O1O reo orted in 2011 (1) ALD, Paoe 234 and as confirmed in W.A.No.782 ot 2O1O dated 1O .O6.2O13, and also as oer Divisi on Bench ludoment of this Court dated L9.O9.2O17 oa ssed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2OO7 reoorted in 2018(2)ALD Daqe 282 and also the Division Bench Ju d o ment of this Court d ted 2L.O4.2O2O assed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 in W.P.No.23O5 7 of 2Ot9 renorted in 2O2O(4)ALD oaqe 379 which had attai ned finalitv. within a oeriod of fou r (O4) weeks from the date of receiDt of a coDv of this order. du v takino into n e observati n and th aw laid d wn the ADex Court in the variou d nts (refe rred to and extracted ab ve and in a rticular r N 3of iudqment of the Apex egglt !!1 tbe eas tate of -1 Y I i 1 l l SN,J wP 26733 2022 ataka v. Uma Devi ul com to the oetition er. However, there shall be no order as to costs, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this lVrit Petition, shall stand closed. IITRUE coPYl' "'*S'ti'^i'Yt?t'ti'-il sEcTloN oFFlcER onerair*rr."'ti?l;,.-'":.Tffi :'-:IIT"?"gt'i*"^]],]1""r.,, officer' ch' 1t#fiffiHtl[i ; ?[:tflj"t"' Parishad Deveropment ; t$.:u-m#:;::: ::.T::",,fi ::x ;:::-- il"'"trupld?03$ t'*u'"'s-tr' Hish courtror the state or reransana' t ffiills;n',*ifi?|Tx3]"*te(oPUC) SA TKS q* C.C. TODAY HIGH COURT DATED: 0811012025 ORDER WP.No.26733 of 2022 { 5r-f Er.q $ x s\ l-l ,) 'ri:.. , ,:: o!* x:.- !-r ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. o) eLe * \-/ Qs Lq/ .)' o