S. Chennaiah v. 1. The State of Telangana

Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-Il appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

2.7 he oetition r ann r.laa h ed this Court seekin tt Draver as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in last grade post for continuously working till date in temporary post of last grade in contingent establishment on compassionate grounds from 18.09.1996 nor regularizing his services even on completion of 25 long years service by not extending the last grade pay benefits with periodical increments from time to time with effect from 18.09.1996 to till date from time to time with arrears as per G.O.Ms.No.687 dated 03.10.1977 to till date is highly unjust and uhfair as per Article 14, 16,21, 39 (d), 43 & 300 (A) of Constitution of India by subjecting petitioner for exploitative enslavement due to his helpless conditions of poverty, poor social, economical and political background by taking it as advantage by the respondents in continuing on pittance wages of Rs.1623/- p.m. and prays to direct the respondents herein to treat the temporary services of petitioner in the last grade post of sweeper 4 SN,-I wP 26699 2022 as regular one for all purposes by granting last qrade pay with periodical increment revised from time to time f om the date of appointment of the petitioner for working 25 lc r g years without any service progress with 100o/o compensation I r arrears of pay as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble :; preme Court in C.A.No.3416 - 3445 of 2010 dated 19_02.2011 n the case of Union of India Vs. Avtar Chand (2019 3 ALD S( 32) and in the case of Prem Singh v. State of UP and Batch rz;es (reported in 2019 10 SCC 516 in paras 36 and 37), in the cas( of Netram Sahu v. State of Chattisgarh & Anr. in Civil Appeal ,,t r.1254 of 201g, dated 23.03.2018, followed by DB Orders issu: i in the case of Kadar Basha in WP No.26788 of 2OL7 dated 10.()r .2017 (DB) with costs by applying aforesaid principles laid by t e Hon,bte Apex Court under Article 141 of our Constitution and p;;s...,,

3. Learn counse! aooeaflnq on b half o'_ the oetitioner olacino reliance on the averments made in the affidavit filed in suDDort of the Dr ent writ Detitiorr oertainin qtn Darta ular, to the servrces rendered b petij: ner wit h the s e nd n eret n r r - :ontends that ved for in the a present writ petition. PERU SED THE R ECORD:- DIS cussro AND CONCLUS ION:- Learned counsel

4. l petitioner submits that the subiect issue !! a D Dea rt no oni :half of the Dresent ) SN,J wry 26699 2022 case is souarelv vered bv he order of this Court, dated .09 .No.243 2 07 2011( 1 ) ALD. Paoe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No -782 ot 2()1 o dated 1O-O 6.2lJ43 and al so o er- dated 1

9. 9-2oL7 oassed in W.P.No .272L7 of 2O17 reDorte in 2018 ( ) ALD e28

04. a s W.P.No.23057 of 2019 reoorted in 2O2o(4) ALD Paoe 379. Learned standino counsel aooeari no on behalf of the 5 respondent No.4 submits that the iievance of -forth h res Writ P been a dd ressed to the soonden s herein as on date and itioner can not comolain inacti on n the therefore, the Dart of resoon dents he in in con iderinq the o rieva nce of v the the oetitioner and hence, the relief as petitione r in the Dresent Wit petition can ot be or nted the resoon dents and no Mandamus can be is ued aqain aved for b r hereu nder as sou ht for and he oetitione r mav be di n d to Du -forth the oetitioner's orievance as out-forth in the Wr w led re to th e resDondents herein and uDOn rece!ot of the said reDre sentation , the res ndents ould consi der the in acco rdance to la w. within a rea sonable o eriod. 6 SN,J wP 26699 2022

6. Lea rned unsel aDDea flno o beha fol _ lhe petitaoner ! v the learned sta nd inq counsel aoDea rtno onb half oft I e resoond ent No.4 7 e e scc (L&S)in Prem inoh v Sta tDara 36 held asu nder: ot ers, e tta Pr (202(,)1 ad ha d "36. There are some of the employees who h;r e not been regularized in spite of having rendered the sen ces for 30_ 40 or more years whereas they have been su::rannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged e,i ablishment, not against any particular project, theii servi: rs ought to have been regularized under lhe Governmenl nstructions and even as per the decision of this Court n State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court n the said decision has laid down thaf in case service:; have been rendered for more than ten years without the (over of the Court's order. as one-time measure, the ervices be regularized of such employees. In the facts <. the case, those employees who have worked for ten yt:; rs or more should have been regularized. It would not ) r proper to regulate them for consideration of regularizatic I as others have been regularized, we direct thit their ;ervices be treated as a regular one. However, it is made cl€ )r that they shall not be entitled to claimlng any dues of < ifference in wages had they been continued in service reg( tarly before attaining the age of superannuation. They sh;l be entifled to receive the pension as if they have retirrl I from the i nderea Uv them riqht from the dav thev entered - ttrf worf _ eha.ged_ esta bt ish ment shi I i bE cou ntEIT; A;. l,-f"ir, " se.rice for orroose of oensionl-- -- ) t I 7 SN,J wP 26699 2022

8. The Aoex Court in the case !f Dharwad District PWD Literate Dailv Waqe Emplovees Association Vs. State of ( 2ls Ka rnata ka re lt orted in 1990 that the State should not keeD a Derson an temDorarv or aoe 396 aid nrinc nlc ccP I adhoc service for lono oeriod and trate to treat such t ersons as re ular o e

9. Para No.53 of the of the iudqment of the ADex Court io the State oLKarnataka ancl others Vs. Umadevi, dated 10.04.2006 reDorted in (2 06) 4 SCC 1 as extracted hereu nd er: - "53. One asoect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irreqular appoantments (not illeqal aDDoantments) as exDlained in S,V. NarayanapDa t1967 (1) SCR 128L R.N. Naniundapoa t1972 (1) SCC 4O9l and B.N. Naqaraian 11979 (4) SCC 5O7l and referred to in para 15 above, of dulv qualified Dersons in duLsanetioned vacant posts mjqht hare beel made and the ernployees have continued to work for ten vears or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question orf reqularizataon oJ the services of such emDloyees may have to be considered on merits in t he liaht oft he princioles settled bv this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the lioht of this iudoment. [n I lnio naf Clrla Governments and their anstrumentalities should take steDs to reqularize as a one-time measure. the services of sueh irreqularly aDDointed, who have worked for ten veals or rnore in dulv sanctioned oosts but not urLer qover of orders qt the cou rls or gf tribunals and should further ensure that reqular .rlrrtcYf , Indir itments are u fiI 8 SN,J wP 26699 2022 sanctaoned posts that require to be fille iuD,inca qes temDorarv emDlovees or dail' waoers are I beinqnowe he orocess ml st be set in oloved. mota n within six month s from thi datr: !r

10. The iudqment of the Aoex Cou reDo rted in 2024 LawSuit( SC) 12O9 in date 1 2O.L2.2O24, ilatI Io Anita and h rsv ofI d the r levant Daraora ph Nos.12 L3. 24. 26, 27 and 28 - rre extracted hereun d er: "12. Despite being labelled as .,par l-time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and cont nuous basis over extensive periods, rangin g from over a decade to nearly two decades;, Their engagement was not sporadic or tempo ary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regul: r, and akin to the responsibilities t y rically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage anlr other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. The claam bv the re not reo lar oo th: I these 13. lacks merit, _ rs the the work performedl nature t/ the aooell ants wa Derennia I and fundamr l rtal to !ces.Ther the functionino of the t curring nature of these duties necessitates classification as regular posts, irrespectiv€ cf how their initial engagements were labelled. I: is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing :, these same tasks to private agencies after the apg ellants' termination demonstrates the inherent rr, ed for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with rnother 9 SN,J wP 26699 2022 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 bf 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 hiqhliohts the iudiciarv's role in rectifvinq such misclassifications and ensurinq that workers receive fair treatment.

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" appointments. It cateooricallv held that emolovees in irreqular apoointments, who were enoaoed in s continuouslv for more than ten vears should be considered for reqularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of "irregular" and h d san ioned l0 SN,J wP 26699 2022 employees, even in cases where their appoirrt nents are not illegal, but merely lack adhere r ce to procedural formalities. Government depa l ,I]ents often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (su6 -a) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlookin: the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of case; where regularization is appropriate. This .sel :ctive aoolication distorts the iudo ent's soiIt and DUTDOSe. effectivelv weaoo izinq it I rainst emolovees who have rende d indisoe 1 sable servrces over decades.

27. In light of these considerations, n our opinion, it is imperative for gover nment departments to lead by example in provicirg fair and stable employment. Engaging worker': on a temporary basis for extended periods, e:;1 ecially when their roles are integral to the organ ; ation,s functioning, not only contravenes interr ttional labour standards but also exposes the orgar ization to legal challenges and undermines enr rloyee morale. By ensuring fair empl') /ment practices, government institutions can r educe the burden of unnecessary litigation, pr rmote job security, and uphold the princilr es of justice and fairness that they are mr: rnt to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a ;t rsitive precedent for the private sector to .ollow, thereby contributing to the overall bett( rment of labour practices in the country. 28. In view of the above discussion and ,i rdings, the appeals are allowed. The impugnec orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal lre set aside and the original application is allowec to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated

27.10.20 18 are quashed; ii. ba kon dutv The apoellants shall b c forthw ith an. _ their ! l1 SN.J wP 26699 2022 forthwith. serv ces reo u la rieed However, the aoD llants shall not be n benefits/ ack waoes for the oeriod h v n t worked for but entitled to continuitv of se ices for the said oeriod and the same would be counted for their oost-retiral benefits, "

11. The Judoment of the ADex Court dated 31.01.2025 rrclt RIP A L AND A frTqED U 2025 | NCa lra r.anartar{ NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD", in oarticular' the relevant 5to19 ereunde *15. It is manifest that the Aooellan t Workmen continuouslv rendered their services over several de. Even vears, someti mes soannin more than a d if certain mu ter rolls were not orodu d in full. the E lTtD over's failure to furnich such records-d esoite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-e ablished labour iurisoru ence. Indian labour law stronolv disfavors DerDetu al dailv-waoe or urh era lha nts in ci work is oer anent in nature. Morallv and leoallv, workers who fulfil onooino municioal reou irements vear after vear cannot be dismissed sum arilv as dispensable . oarticularlY in the absence of a oenulne contractor aqree ent. At this juncture, it would be appropriate . to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs: actua e llrcitrta u t2 SN,J wP 26699 2022 "22. The pervasive misuse of tempora ./ employment contracts, as exemplified in this r:; se, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely rffects workers' rights and job security. In the privat€ jector, the rise of the gig economy has led to t n increase in precarious employment arrangor 1ents, often characterized by lack of benefits, job :; rcurity, and fair treatment. Such practices have ber: r criticized for exploiting workers and undermining lir rour standards. Government institutions, entrusted wit r upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear rn even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitati,e employment practices. When public sector ent I es engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not r nly mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the i; I economy but also sets a concerning precedent that ( an erode public trust in governmental operations. 25. It is a disconcerting reality I rat temporary employees, particularly in governmr nt institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exF loitation. While the foundational purpose of temporar. contracts may have been to address short-term or easonal needs, they have increasingly become a me: r,anism to 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 evade long-:,rrm obligations owed to employees. These practi,: rs maniiest in several ways: . Masuse of "Temoorarv" Laberl s: Emolovees eno oed for work that is essen ial, recurri nq, nd in an institu ion arv" "contractual," even when thei roles mtrror !s dionitv, se uritv, and benefits identical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are Frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice rndermines the principles of natural justice and subjo:ts workers to a w rl iers of the that reo lar e fun label das reoular ! t "te nDor t:e erfor at to Su , iJ 13 SN,J wP 26699 2022 state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. . Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally sign ificant. . 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 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, 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 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. t4 SN,J wP 26699 2022 ^) er nnt L7. In light of these considerations, t he discontinuation of the Appellant Work r en violation oF the most basic labour Iaw prinr::les established that their services were adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev Employer's stands in Once it is tenr inated without the Ll.P. Industrial wel : enqaoed ln w l<:rs cannot be releoated to oeroetual uncertaintv. Wh! e concerns of municioal budo t and comD liance wr r recruitm ent erit consi eration, such con ( ernsdo not absolve the Emol of st bti ataons or ne ate equitable enta lements. In ee(I bureaucratic limitations can ot tr mDt e leoitin 1 rte riqhts of workmen who rved contin ou: vrn de facto ula r ole atutorY I ( ded eriod. r n n o Th nt he -w eHi h - Court. to the ntw rl1 nen to future meaninqful back waoes. is herebv set ; sid with the fo lowinq directio s: onti n u itv w a ( L The discontinuation of the Appell rnt Workmen,s services, effected without compliance vith Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.p. Industri3 Disputes Act, 7947 , is declared illegal. All orders or ( ommunications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen ;hall be treated as continuing in service from the date oF their termination, for all purposes, includirr I seniority and contin uity in service. II The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective: posts (or posts t5 SN,J wP 26699 2022 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 eliqibilitv for oromo ions, if nv. uentia I benefits, such as senioritv and n until for co n III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant workmen shall be entitled to 50% 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. IV. The Resoonde t Emol ver ls directed to t orocess for i nitiate a fair and trans oikme within srx requ la rizinq the Ao ellant t consr derinq the fa c a that t ev ha e o shal not i moose ed ucati nal or oroced ural riter a nev r aooli dtoth e Aooel ant Wor kmen or to s o oerformed m lo n t es tn n roact vel Daren Ina m exoedite all Re neces sarv n u EmD lover r n e o w eouitabl e norms. o u 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." L2. The Aoex Court in a udoment reDorted in (2OL7 )1 niab nd others vs Suo me Co rt Case L4a. tn State of Pu 16 SN,J wP 26699 2022 Ja iit sinoh and (1) (2)(3),ofthe said IUdoment ob erved as l rnder: thers at Paras 54 and it a ras "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, t,.hile adjudicating upon the above controversy had concludea, that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum <i the regutar pay_ scale, merely for the reason, that the activiri ::; carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were simiL r. The full bench lowgyer, made two exceptions. Temporary err ttoyees, who fe .either of the .two exceptions, were ield elntitl= l io wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regula - emptoyees. The excepbons recorded by the full bench of the t igh Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder: _ "(1) A daily wager, ad.hoc or contractual ,ppointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointe,l'after undeigoing a selection process based upon fain\es: and equaity if opportunity to all other eligibte candidates sha be entitted to minimum of the regular pay scale l.om the date of engagement. B , ! 1 t ! or contractual ,ainst reoular s are availed bv the State for a sufficient rilv waoers. ad be entitled to t without anv rk of oerennial I for such lono :reated in such toularization, if ratelv in terms ( 3-) In the event, a claim is made for n t timum pay scale afte,r^more than three years and two mo,1 hs of c1iptetion of 10 years of continuous working, a dail, wager,-ui'ho, o, contractu_al employee shatt be entitted tt iriears for a period of three years and two months.,,

13. The iudoment of the Aoex Court reoor! sd in 2O1O(9) -; rnd others v t7 SN,J wP 26699 2022 M.L.Kesari and others, in oa icular. oaras 4 to reads as u nder:

4. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umade vi was rendered In that case, a on 1O.4.2006 (reoorted in 2006 G) SCC 1) 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 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 fufther 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 Artictes 14 and 76 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : mav be "53. One asDect needs to be clarified. Th ere irreoular a DDointmenB (not illeoal appointmentsl as exolained in S.V. NaravanaDDa 17967 (71 SCR 7281, R.N. NaniundaDDa 17972 (71 SCC 4O9l and B.N. Naoaraian 17979 (4) SCC 5O7l and referred to in oara 75 above. of dulv oualified ia dttlv <an..1 vu?2taj ,tai<ic m been made nd the emolovees have continued to ten vears or more but wit, out the of orders of the courts or of unals. interuen The ouestion of reoularization of the services of such emolovees mav have to be considered on merits in the lioht of the princioles settted bv this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the lioht of this iudoment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities measure, the services of such irresularlv aooointed, 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 re ulatirc a< td i )La cfa.t< .a I t8 SN,J wP 26699 2022 nt sanctioned Dosts that here temooraru reoular recruitments are undertak<t1t to fill those utre _to be filled uo. Dlovees:rr dailv waoers set in ,n cases are beino now emoloved. The oroces5 must motio within six onths from this d,z:e..... '5. It is evident from the above that the-,, is an exception to the general principles against 'regularizatit t, enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (i) The employee concerned should have worka, for 70 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the beneii or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In >ther words, the State Government or its instrumentality shoutc have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntariiy and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should nt t be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not nt rle or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons tppointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, t \e appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the , rcrson employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected witho t- undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such a )pointments are considered to be irregular. (iii t Umadevi casts e dutv u G.overnment or instrumentalitv. to take st.)J the seruices of those irreoularlv aooointed _ had served for more than ten vearc withoe protection of anv interim ordets of courts o..! one-time measure. llmadevi. directed thal measure must be set in motion within six tg 200(j . of its !he concerned ts to reoularize )mplovees who : the benefit or ' tribunals, as a such one-time on ths from the ndered on 7o..4. 6. The term 'one-time measuret has to be t nderstood in its proper perspective. This would normally mer t that after the dgcision in Umadevi, each department or ea,: t instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and pr= nre a list of aill casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who t,t ve been working for more than ten years without the intervenn >n of courts anZ tribunals and subject them to a process verificat cn as to whether they. are working against vacant posts and po::: ess fhe requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize th. r.services.

7. At the end of six months from the date of dec sion in umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual en.g loyees were still \ \ -E\ t9 SN,J wP 26699 2022 pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government depaftments 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 exercise in terms of para 53 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 only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered. 8. The ohiect behind the said direction in oara 53 of Umadevi is t fold- First is to ensure that those who t have Dut in more than ten veers o continuous service ,n terim orderc of courts or without the orotection of an tribunals, s rendered, are considered for reoularization in view of their deDartme nts / i, sttut tent,alit e-s do lrrrctttalp the oractice of emolovino oetsons on ilv-waoe/ad- hoc/casual for lono De and then oeriodicallv reoularize them on the oroun d that thevh ave served for more than ten vears, therebv defeati no the constitutional or statutory orovisions relatino to re itment and of the direction is that all eDDointment. The true effe 70.4.2006 (the date of dec. on in Umadevi) without the orotection of an v interim order of anv court or tribunal- in vacant oosB, oossessino the reouisite oualification. are entitled to be considered for reoularization. The fact that the emDlover has not u ertaken such exercise of reoularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or t, et such exercise was und ken onlv in ch emolovees. ted few. will not disentitle s reoard to a limi the date of decision in Umad'ev, d for more than ten <a?ta,:td ,5 s ;hrj o n 20 SN,J wP 26699 2022 the above directions in ltmadevi as a one-trI 1e sure, t za i rn in terms of

9. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in lJmadevi. The Appellant ,Zita panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decisio r in lJmadevi or thereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has , tirected that the cases of respondents should be considered tn eccordance with law. The only further direction that needs be 1iven, in view of Umadevr, is that the Zila panchayat, Gai tg shoutd now undertake an exercise within six months, a gr ieral one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether th,- -e are any daity wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila >anchayai and if so whether such employees (inctuding the respo dents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of umad= /.i. If they fulfitt them, their services have to be regutarized. It :uch an exercse has already been undertaken by ignoring or omii ting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of lleie cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in conti|r ation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is nee Tless to say that if the respondents do not fulfilt the requiremer rs of para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be regularised tf the emptoyees who have completed ten years service do , tot possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the pas i, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered fo - regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of a-cordingly. L4. fn he iudo ment of the Aoex Court in ttl hal Sinoh and in (2o13) 4 scc 5, the othe rs v. State of Pun ab reDo Supreme Court considered the case of rbsorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made avaalable. It held that the mere fa ct that wages were paid by the Bank did not render t re appeilants 'employees' of those Banks since the aplr rintment was >L 2t SN,J wP 26699 202?, 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 used to create a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbatrary. It cceot the defence th t there were no sanctioned oosts and so th re was lu ification f r the State to utilise services of !a e number of oeoole li e the sa ctioned po ts do aooell ants for decades. It h ]d that TI not fall from heaven" and that the State as to create them bva conscious choice on the basis of some rationa ! it held that the asses ment of need. Referrino to Umad ADD llants before them were n t arbitraril vc @sg!,-!hetr as it I aoDoint ent was ot an 'ir oular'ao ointment en mad an acco ance wit the statutorv Dro d ure ibed under the Police Act Dres cannot be heard to sav tha thev are ot entitled to be rmanent basis s of the tate on absorbed into the servi

1861. nd the temDora rv and not aoainst anv sanctione d Dosts created bv the State. It was held that the n Umadevi annot iudqment i 22 SN,J wP 26699 2022 become a licence for exoloitatio n bv the _ State and its instrumentalities and neither the Governml rnt of puniab no r those Dublic sector Banks can continue: ; rch a oractice !nco sistent with thei oblioati on to fu ctiorr in acco rdance

15. The iudom nt of the Aoex urt re ort d in 2O15 SC e c Onli eSC17 7 between B.Srinivasuluando hers v el lore Munici Dal Corooratio n ReD.bv its Commts!; oner Nellore District. Andhra Pradesh e d others tn Dart cular and I aras 7 t 't I reads as u nder: (7) We find it difficult to accept the reasonl ta Dted bv the Hioh Court. The riaht of the appellants to 5 tk reeularization e aooellant have nlv orior to the ( iSsuance of the said G.O. but even subseouq 1 _to the issue of O.g.-JjU loder The respondent Municipality L -.ing a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Ins, ) te of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite t.o. almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appella t .s and coniinued to extract work from the appellants. 8. In the circumstances, refusing the bert fit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appet lnts approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is no- justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is attowed modifyin 1 the order under directing that the appellants, seryi<.t s be regularised appeal with effect from the date of their completir ! their five year continuous seNice as was taid down by thjs Coutt in District Collectoy'Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singf, & Ors. 20O9 (8) SCC 480, -by

16. In Amarkant RaivState of Bihar c 5 th Su rt held L feDl I d(2 o15) 8 that 'fhe objective ZJ SN,J wP 26699 2022 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 s who had -servaA tho Clrlo ent of +hzraa ent and ears". In that his decisi na extracted above. entalities ee was w vtew ex ressed i L7. In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Pras d reoorted in I zlJ1,4 I 7 ca )) 3 similar vi w frlzan b Suoreme Court and it was held as follows : "47..-- In vi'ew of the cateooricel findino of fact on the relevant contentious issue that the resDondent emDrovees have continued in their se ce for more than 7o vears continuouslv therefore. the leoal orinciole laid down bv v, case (State of Karnataka v Umadevi this Court in (2OO6) 4 SCC 7 : 2OO6 SCC (L&SI 731 at oara 53 souarelv applies to the oresent cases. The Division Bench of the Hioh Court has riohtlv held t,'hat the resDondent emolovees are entitled for the relief, the same cannot be intertered with bv t. is Court."

18. The Judgment of this Court dated 06.12.2(J22 passed in W.P.No.276O2 ot 2019 which pertains to regularizataon of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which 24 SN,J wP 26699 2022 had been upheld by the Division Bencl, of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2fJ23 dated 1O.10.2( 23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex lourt dated

09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 ol 2024.

19. The iudo ment of the Aoex Court in Hari Krish na Mandir Trust V. State of Ma harashtra and Ot ers reported in AIR 2020 Suoreme Court 3969 and in o a rticular para ! .1OO and 1 h ldasf II w "100. The High Courts exercising their juri ;diction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not :nly have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in :he nature of mandamus, but are dut -boun d to€ e!:e ise such power, where the Government or a pu! lic authoritv has failed to exercise or has wron(1v exercised d iscretion conferred uoon it bv a statute orar ule, or a Dolicv decision of the Government or as exercised irreleva nt ti n h r r 2 I consideration.

101. In all such cases, the High Court must i;sue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel perf )rmance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discrr-. ion conferred upon the Government or a public authority."

20. The Division Bench of this Court in its Jur! rment dated 10.o 6.2O13 oassed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O10 and 854 of 2(J12 while uoholdino the Judoment datecl 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.243 77 ot 2OO7 and C.C.Nrr 48 ot 2008 observed as under:- 25 SN,J wP 26699 2022 "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/circu la rs dated 20.12.1989, 11.09.1992. 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for regularization of casual/contract employees, It ls also to be seen that Section 25-T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for -such a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of Section 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respondents are entitled to regularization as directed in the impugned orders, as the learned single Judge considered all the aspects of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which. in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals." 2L. The Division Bench of this Court in its Jud qment dated 19.09.2O17 oassed in W.P.No.272L7 ol 2OL7 reo rted in 2IJL8(2 )ALD Daoe 282 at oara 16 and oara 18 observed as u nder: - "16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994, were ln existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a 9o- bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time absorption/regula rizatiofl 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 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 rization/absorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of

2.4.L9 s. No.2 n o 94 d-v 26 SN,J wP 26699 2022 r ! ! ! ud m ued b i niula Bashini's case (su Dra), does not I r the tr:r ectorv of the irectio Para 53 of its in Uma Devi's case (suDra). It is therefore, not iudqment oermrssible for the resDondents to take sh elter u der Act 2ol 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212- d ..1994, to denv 22, reou la rization to the Detitioners. who h ,e, admittedlv, e criteria laid down in Pari No.53 of the satisfied iudoment in Uma Deyi's case (suora). 18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribur 'lated 27.6.2077, .l is set aside and I rection to the resoon dents to con sider reoularis ation of _ the services of the o itioners aoainst the existinq vac ncres Work 3 Insoe ors and aDDoi nt them subi to thrI r satisfvanq the criteria laid down in Para No.53 in Uma the iur loment Devi's case (suora) This orocess musl; be comoleted within two months from the date of recei ,t of a coDv of this order."

22. Th€ Division Bench of this Court in its J lJ dqment dated t2 9 and 2L.O4.2O20 oass ed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O Oin w.P. o.23O57 of 2019 reoorted in 2O2o(4)Ar =) oaoe 379 at Da ras 45, 48 an Dara 5() o served as under: - L "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have ,een working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almo: t (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimurn time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously wcr <ing without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date 44. It is not t has not follow vi's ca I e (suo ra). as exD ined in M .L. Kesari's case (suo a) an( unde rtaken a one-ti e exercrse e list _ rf dailv waoe DreDarrno emolovees who had worked for more than ten (1O) vears withou t the interve ntion of the Courts and ribunalsason tthemtoao rocess v e rification as to 1o.4.2 OO6 and subi whether th e are workino aoainst vac E nt posts and ) ;ts. and if so, own wh the decision in Uma the lst resD() rd 21 SN,J \trP 26699 2022

50. Accordingly. the writ petition is allowed; the impugned 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 illegal. arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the respondents are directed to reqularize on one-time basis oetitioners' services from the date each of the petitioners comolete 10 vears of service on dailv wa oes from the initial dates of their apoointment, But, thev shalt not .be entitled to anv The said exercise shall be done within two monetarv reli (2) weeks from the date of receiot of coov of the order."

23. This Court oDines that in the oresent case. the resDondents fa iled to discharoe their dutv in examanino the reouest of the Detitioner for reoularization of oetitioner's services, who is workino as contin ent sweeDer and nsider t treat the r senrice of the etitioner in the last orade D st of Dart tame sweeDer as ular one for all DurDoses bv orantino last qrade DaY with Deriodical in rement revised from time to time from the date of aooointment of th oetitioner. in accordance to law.

24. This Co rt oDines that oetit oner is entitle d for considera tion of oetitioner's case fo orant of the Draved for in the oresent rit Petition in vi r relief as of the ations of Court i ( referred to an d extracted above ) and the vi w of the 28 SN,J wP 26699 2022 Division Bench of this Court in the Judome0 ts referred to and extracted a bove.

25. Taki nq into considerat lon:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances o,the case. b) The submissions made by the le I .ned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and lea rned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the responder t No.4. c) The observations of the Apex Court ir the various judgments (referred to and extracted abc,.e) and again enlisted below: i)(2o20) 1 SCC (L&s) (ii) 1e90(2) SCC page 396 (iii) 202s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(sc) 12O9 (v) (2017) l scc t4B (vi) 2o1o(9) scc z4t (vii) (20r3) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Ontine SC t7g7 (ix) (201s) 8 scc 26s (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, Page234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 202O(4)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.7B2 of 2Ol0 and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment datt d OB.O9.2OtO 29 SN,J wP 26699 2022 passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated

19.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.27217 ot 2O17 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated

21.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2019 (referred to and extracted above). g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order. The Writ Petition is allowed, the petitioner is directed to put-forth the claim of the petitioner for reqularization of petiuonellseivices, and also the claim of the Detitaoner to treat the temDotarv services of the Detitioner in the last orade oost of Sweeper as reqular one for all purposes bv qrantino last orade oav with periodical increments revised from th date tn m petitioner and all conseq uential benefits, dulv enclosinq all the relevant documents in support of petitaoner's case as ut-forth in the resent writ etitio wt hin a 30 SN.J wt' 26699 2022 one (O1) week from the date of iot rI' copv of the r and the resoondents shall exam ane an ( onsider same in accordance to law. in conformitv wil :l ,_ Drl nci les of natu ral iustice v orovidi oanoo rtun il1' of oersonal hea ri qtotheo etitioner. i n terms of orders ,assed bv the Suo reme Cou rt in Um Devi's di1 2OO6(4) scC the iu qment Dassed in W. P.No.2 ,.377 of 2007 Paqe 1 se reoo dated O8.O9.2O1 O reDorted in 2011 (1 ) ALD. ,aoe 234 and as co ed in .A.No.7 82 ot 2O1'0 dated 1l ,06.20 3, and also as per Division Bench Judoment of thi Cou 19.O9.2O17 oassed in W.p.No.27217 of 2orl I reoorted in 2 and also t EE 2r)18(2)ALD oaoe Jud ment of this Court dated 2L .o4.20 O oas ed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 in W.p.No. ! 3O57 of 2019 reoorted in 2O2O(4)ALD oaqe 379 which_ ha ion Be attain ed ,ls,l I f thin a :! L J s w rder- iot of a rm hedate of takinq into consideratio the observation and the lavrr laid down bv the Apex Court an the vari us iudoments (r ferred t extracted above), and tn Da fticular, para No. 53 of iud ment of the Aoex Court in the casS of State of Karnataka v. lJma Devi and dulv communice{ e the decision o and '( 3t SN,J wP 26699 2022 to the oetitioner. H owever, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6- SECT|ON OFFICER i One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA (For Her LadYshiPs Kind Perusal) To,

2. 1 The Principal Secretary, Panchayathrai Departmeht' Telangana Secretariat' Hyderabad, State of Telangana' The Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department' Govt of i"L"gr.r, i;rangana Secretariat, Hyderabad' State of Telangana' The District Collector, (Panchayat)' and Chairma.n of Minimum Wages Co.r-iti"" unO District Selection Committee' Nalgonda District' TheChiefExecutiveofficer,Z|llaPralaParishad,NalgondaDistrict. The Mandal Development Officer, Mandal Praia Parishad' Chandampet Mandal, Nalgonda District. 11 LR CoPies The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law' Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. 4 6 7 5 Advocates Association, Library, High Court f . iThe Secretary, Telangana ' Buildings, HYderabad. / i ! : I i I ! I : : { i f . iOne CC to SRI CH.GANESH, Advocate [OPUCI 1O:One CC tO SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT loPUCl Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-II, High Court for the State of Telangana' at Hyderabad [OUTI Two CD CoPies 21 1 I "iI l' BSR PJG i IYY I { i I i ! I t t. t h t. rJr:' E t a E i ) :1 4 t, : -. *..:' ^ t, , t_ I' i. ) :' : '*. j::1.,1'. 'Flitr': L,iL-l e-!:r' . ,. {r}::-. fi'i i' r' i.{ i1 ; ! i. HIGH COURT DATED: 0811012025 GC TODAY ii4 I{: I f o iO \z ).'"o. . 1r./ n 11 \Ps ?il?li ,r J .:, i ''1.'1 !':' '-.'- : . .1" .' ORDER i WP Nos.26699 ot 2022 J { I I : i i I I : 'i:,: AL OWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS n^\>l - ,oR'" " \Y.^1 @' ^<o ^!a