The High Court · 2026

LD. Paoe 234 as confirmed in W.A. o.782 ot 2O1O, dated 1O.06.2013 and also order, dated 19.O9.2O17 oassed in W.P.No.2721 7 ot 2Ot7 reoorted in 2O18 2) ALD Paqe 2 2 and also the order, dated 2L.O4.2O2O o ssed in W.P,NO .23057 of 2019 reoorted in 2 o2o(41 ALD Paoe 379. n behalf oft h e 5. Learn resDon ent No.4 su mits that the ortevance of the sta ndin o counsela Dt,earrn etitioner a t-forth in t e resent Wr ion had n ddressed the respondents herein as on date and therefore, the petitioner cannot comolai n inaction on the oart of resoondents herein in consid erinq the qrievance of hence th ti fas for b etitioner in the Dresent Wit oetition c D annot be qranted no Man can be is eda alns h res o n r nder a o t for and itione be di to Dut- rth the oetitioner's orievan ce as out-forth in the n Writ Peti n wa ofa etailed r resentati resoondents herein and uoon receiot of th said to th reDresentation, the resoondents wo ld consider the same in accordance to law, within a reasonable eriod. l a'li \ 6 SN,J wP 26722 2022

6. Learn counsel aoo ea rt nq on behalf of I te etitio ner does not disoute the said submi ssion made b standin q counsel aoo rinq on behalf of the respond ent ! the le a rned No.4

7. The Aoex Court in the iudqment reporterl in (2 20) 1 scc (L ) in Prem Sinoh v State of Uttar >radesh and others, at oara 36 held as nder: "36. There are some of the employees who hav( not been regularized in spite of having rendered the servic:s for 30- 40 or more years whereas they have been super annuated. As they have worked in the work-charged estt )lishment, not against any particular project, their servic€: ought to have been regularized under the Government I structions and even as per the decision of this Court rr State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court r the said decision has laid down that in case services lave been rendered for more than ten years without the cc rer of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the se -vices be regularized of such employees. In the facts o, the case, those employees who have worked for ten year; or more should have been regularized. It would not b(, proper to regulate them for consideration of regularizatiorr as others have been regularized, we direct that their :;{ rvices be treated as a regular one. However, it is made cle,r that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of dil ,erence wages had they been continued in service regu r rly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall I e entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired_ from the reo u lar establish ment and the servtces re Ceredbv them riqht from the dav thev e tered I re work- ;! charoed establishment shall be _t ua I ifva no servt ce for ouroose ot nsion. " counted as ! 7 SN,J wP 26722 2022

8. The Aoex Co rt in the case of Dharwad District PWD Literate Dailv Waqe EmDlovees Associatio Vs. State of Karnataka reo rted in 1990(2) SCC Paoe 39 6 !aid orinciole that the State should not keeo a oerson i temDorarv or o rvice f rl a have to tr s oersons as reqular one.

9. Para No.53 o the of the iudqment of the Apex Court he State of Karna and others Vs. Umadevi a

10.O4.2O06 reported in (2OO6 ) 4 SCC I is extracted hereun der:- r "53. One asoect needs to be clarified. There mav be cases where irreo ular aooointments (not illeqal as ex lained in S.V. 11967 (1) SCR 1281. R.N. N aniundaooa 1L972 (1) SCC 409'l and B.N. Naoaraian tL979 (4) SCC 5O7l and referred to in oara 15 above. of dulv oualified oersons in dulv sanctioned vacant Dosts miqht have been made and the emolovees have continued to work for ten vears or more but without the intervention of th courts or of tribunals. The r atio of the services of suc em e considered on merits in the !i h s settled b this C abovereferred to and in the liqht of this iudoment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and thelr tn strumentalities should take larize as a ne-time measure th worked for ten vears or more in dulv sanctioned posts but not under cover ofo rders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that reqular rqcluitmeots are undertaken to fill those vacant t uch irre n n u + 8 \- SN,J wP 26'122 2022 sanctioned Dosts that require to be fillec !_ up, in cases where temDor rv mol vees or da il waqers are now emoloved. The process mu! t be set in be tn motion w ithan six months from this date. e

10. The iud o ment of the ADex Cou dated 20.L2.2024, reDo d in 2024 LawSuit( C) 12O9 in Jao r r Anita and v. Union of India and others, and .he releva n't e extracted Da raq raph Nos.12, t3, 24, 26,27 and 28 l ! hereun{elri "12. Despite being labelled as "part'time workersr" the apPellants performed :hese essentia! tasks on a daily and conti t ruous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or tempor rry in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regul;r , and akin to responsibilities tyJ ically associated with sanctioned posts. Mot over, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks durinrl the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. erit, rmed bI The claim bv the respondents tha E these 13. is the not reoular osts lacks nature of the work pe aooellants was oerennial and fundame g tal to the functioninq of the offices. The re :urring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective )f how their initial engagements were labelled. It s also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing ()l these same tasks to private agencies after the ap I lllants' termination demonstrates the inherent ne ed for these services. This act of outsourcing which effectively replaced one set of workers with ; nother { 7 9 SN.J wP 26722 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 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 It hiq liqhts corresponding rights and benefits mtsc lassificati ons and ensurino that workers recetve fair treat ment. 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. ateqoricallv held that emolovee It I rreq ular aoooi ntments who were enoaq iudicia 's role rn rectifvinq " irreg u lar" a a cont nuouslv for more than ten vears s ould be consider ed for requlariz ation as a one- lme m easu e. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions re on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims l@!!=\- \.\' -t-' '': ! .' 10 SN,J wP 26722 2022 employees, even in cases where their appoint r are not illegal, but merely lack adhererr, procedural formalities. Government deparl r often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supr argue that no vested right to regularization for temporary employees, overlooking judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases r regularization is appropriate. This selg aDplication distorts the iudqment's spiril puroose, effectively weaponizinq it ar ) emolovees who have rendered indisper ! services over decades.

27. In light of these considerations, il is imperative for goverr opinion, it departments to lead by example in providin and stable employment. Engaging workers temporary basis for extended periods, espr when their roles are integral to the organiz: functioning, not only contravenes intern,t labour standards but also exposes the organi: to legal challenges and undermines emgrl morale. By ensuring fair emplolr practices, government institutions can re the burden of unnecessary litigation, pro job security, and uphold the principle justice and fairness that they are me:rr embody. This approach aligns international standards and sets a pc,r precedent for the private sector to f,l thereby contributing to the overall bette' of labour practices in the country. 'lents e) to :xists ;able I fa ir on a cially :ion's :iona I atio n d uce rt to llow, ne nt 2A. In view of the above discussion and firr ings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned c rders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal Ere set aside and the original application is allowed t ) the following extent: i. The termination orders 27 .10 .2018 are quashed; ll, The aooellants shall be ! lken hw h and their on dutv 11 SN,J wP 26'722 2022 reqularised servlc s forthwith. However, the aooell ants shall not be entitledto D ecu n ta rv bene ts/back wa es for the oeriod thev have notworked for but would be entitled to continuitv of servi es for the sa id oeriod and the same w uld be counted for thetr Dost-retiral benefits."

11. The Judqment of the Aoex Court dated 3 .01.2025 reDorted in 2O25 INSC L44 in "SHR PAL AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD", iN OA rticular, the releva nt ra No are ext hereunder "15. It is anifest that the Aooellant Workmen continuouslv rend ered their se lces over evera I vears. so metames soannin q more than a decade. Even if certain mu ster rolls were not oroduced in ful!, the Emolover' s fa ilure to fu rn ish such record s-desD te directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-established !abour iurisorudence. Indian labour law stronqlv disfav rs Deroetual dailv- waoe or contractual enqaqements in circumsta nces where the work is Dermanent in n ture. Morallv and leoallv. workers who fulfil onooino municioal reo irements nnot be di mt e a disoensable, oarticularlv i qenurne qreement. At this juncture, it would be contractor 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: the absence of s maril 1l 12 SN,J V\'P 26722 2022 "22. The pervasive misuse of temporar r employment contracts, as exemplified in this c.: e, reflects a oroader systemic issue that adversely ii.Fects workers, rights and job security. In the private s:ctor, the rise of the gig economy has led to ar increase in precarious employment arrangerl lnts, often characterized by lack of benefits, job-se r urity, and Fair treatment. Such practices have beerr criticized for exploiting workers and undermining lat,r ur standards. Government institutions, entrusted-witt, upnoiOing tne principles of fairness and justice, bear ar even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitativ( employment practices. When public sector entitie s engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not o^ y miriors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy Out also.sets a concerning precedent that"ctr r eroJe public trust in governmental operations. 25. It is a disconcerting reality ft r t temporary :Tl]oy-":r, particularly in governmerrr institutions, otten face multifaceted forms of explt tation. While the foundational purpose of temporaiy , ,nl-.t. ,uy have been to address short-term o. s<,, sonal-neeOs, [ey lave increasingly become a mech,r rism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long_terr r obligations owed .to employees. These prac-tices; maniiest in several ways: o Mis se of "Tem DOra tv" Lab ls I Emolovees rw ork that e qao d lse sse tier rec rfln ct, and inteqral to the function rnq ota rinstitu tio n mtrror Suc h q ular ite_ performino e t rk a nd ben efits tla e diqnitv s curitv, e id entical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary e r ployees are frequently dismissed without curre o. n,,i.u, ir ru"n in the present case. This practice unc ermines the principles of natural justice and subjects ,o.k"., to u on r ct h eof is assi ca r lles s en tled to w nth u o nla v e J E ) 13 SN,J wP 26722 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 sig n ifica nt. . 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 reco rd. t4 SN,J wP 26',t22 2022 L7. In light of these considerations, th: Employer,s discontinuation of the Appellant Workm: I stands in violation of the most basic labour law princill es. Once it is established that their services were term r ated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the -,p. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev were_ enqaoed in essential, oerennial duti s, these worke:r s cannot be releoa d to oeroet al uncertaintv. Whil, conce rns of municipal budoet a nd comolian e with _ recruitment rules merit consideration do not absolve the Emolover of statutorv o b lioations or neoa te eouitable entitle ents. In eed, lurea cratic limitat ons cannot e riohts of trumD the itimarl workmen who have served contin uousl v in de facto reo ular role s for an ex ended oe riod. such conc 5 ned ord er of the

18. The imo ioh t: rurt, to the extent thev confine the Apoellant Workrr en to futu re dailv-waoe enqaqement without meantn qful back w qes, is herebvseta 5 ide with the crt rtinui vor ino direc rons: I. The discontinuation of the Appell;rt Workmen,s services, effected without compliance vu th Section 6E and Section 6N oF the U.p. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or c: nmunications terminating their services are , quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen st all be treated as continuing in service from the rate of their termination, for all purposes, includin(y seniority and contin uity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall -einstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective : )sts (or posts t5 SN,J wP 26722 2022 akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire oeriod of a bsence (from he date of termination unti I actual reinstatement shall be of service and al! counted for continuit conseo u ential benefits. such as s nioritv and eliqibilitv for promotions, if anv. ) 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 Resoondent Emolover is dir cted to in itiate a fair and tra nsoarent Drocess for reo u la rizinq the Aooellant Workmen within six e considerino the fact th t thev have oerformed perennial municioal duties akin to permanent Dosts. In assessinq reqularization, the Emolover from t rei nstat all not e educa criteria retroactivelv if such reouirements were never a olied to the ApDellant Workmen or to similarlv situated requla r emolovees in the oast. To the extent that sanct oned vacancies for such xist or are re uired. the Res Don dent duties administrative Drocesses to ensure lonotim emolovees are not indefinitelv reta ined on dailv waoes contrarv to statut rv and eouitabl e norms. lo er rocedu T]

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." t2. The A x Court tna iudoment oorted in (2o17) 1 Suoreme Court Cases 148, in State of Puniab and others vs t6 SN,J wP 26122 2022 Jaqiit Sinqh and others at Paras 54 and il s su b-pa ras (1)(2)(3), of the said iudqment observed as uI der: "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, wl upon the above controversy had concluded, L employees were not entitled to the minimum of l, scale, merely for the reason, that the activities daily-wagers and regular employees were similat. however, made two exceptions. Temporary emy.l in either of the two exceptions, were held entitlea minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular e exceptions recorded by the full bench of the H,g impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:- le adjudicating 1at temporary rc regular pay- carried on by The full bench >yees, who fell o wages at the nployees. The h Court in the "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual a.)ointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed ,z ter undergoing a selection process based upon fairness , nd equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates,: hall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale fr: n the date of engagement. (2) But if dailv waqers, ad hoc o' contractual appointees are not aopointed ac,i inst reoular are availed <anr-ti.anad ,,arcf< an.l continuouslv, with notional breaks, _)v the State Government or its instrumentalities l'< r a sufficient lono oeriod i.e. for 7O vears, such da v wasers. ad e entitled to hoc or contractual aooointees shall minimum of the reqular oav scale_ without any allowances on the assumption that wolk of oerennial nature is available and havins worked for such lonq period of time, an equitable risht is u ?ated in such cateoorv of oersons. Their claim for re1 ularization. if anv. mav have to be considered seoatittelv in terms of lesallv oermissible scheme. fhafu <arwiac 5 ! I (3) In the event, a claim is made for miri num pay scale after more than three years and two month; of completion of 70 years of continuous working, a daily tzger, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled tc arrears for a period of three years and two months."

13. The iudoment of the Aoex Court reDort( scc 247 between: State of Karnataka a 2010 9 1d others v 7 l7 SN,J wP 26722 2022 M.L. esari and others. oa rticu I r, Daras 4to9rea ds as under:

4. The decisioninState of Karnataka v. Uma devi was rendered on1 .4.2006 ( Dorted i 2006 G) SCC 1). In that c,ase, a of this Court held that appointments made Constitution Bench without following the due process or the rules retating to ot confer any right on the appointees and appointment did n 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 ot 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 constitutionat 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 instrumentatities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further hetd 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 74 and 16 of the Constitution. This Coutt however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : "53. One as case where needs to be cla There mav be rreqular DDointme ts (not i,llesal 7967 9 CR , m. ,v .Na s.v. 79 f n 7 ualifi' tts or of t Dersons in dulv sanctioned vacant oosts mioht have ade and the emolovees have continued to ten vears or more but without the work for IN terv ntion of ord, rs of the nals. The ou estion of reoularization of the services f such emolo es mav have to be considered on rits in the lisht of the orincioles se ttled bv this Court e tha I and thei,r it ulanr ent. n ih2? con Stafe Governmen kc ste f rrtl a jho talities a one-firno measule, the servi ularlv aooointed, who have wo 'ked for ten vears or more I ver of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that ed Dosts but not under instrumen of such ular, , s r, , 18 SN,J \yP 26'122 2022 cruitments ere reoular ,n cases are beinq now em OYed. The motion within six months from this da t sanctioned oosts that reouire lo be filled uo. r dailv waoers ss rrusf be set in ere temDorarv e Dlovees ndertakeq to fill I "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regulariza ar' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilted : (i) The employee concerned shoutd have worked for 70 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefi- )r protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In t.her words, the State Government or its instrumentality shoulc have employed the employee and continued him in service rcluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should nct be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not ma le or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons d,tpointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, tt ? appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the p'rson employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was vorking against sanctioned posts, but had been selected withou. undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such ac )ointments are considered to be irregular. U m , overnm n \ con cerned y to reoularize to take of those irreoularlv aDDointed . nolovees who the servi had serued for more than ten vears without.the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or 'ribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi, directed that 1 uch one-time measure must be set in motion within six mgnths from the oo6

6. The term ' one-time measure' has to be u.t proper perspective. This would normally mear decision in Umadevi, each department or eact. should undertake a one-time exercise and pregt, casual, daily-wage or ad hoc emptoyees who ha r for more than ten years without the interventic t tribunals and subject them to a process verificatio they are working against vacant posts and possrt qualification for the post and if so, regutarize thei.- lerstood in its that after the instrumentality re a list of all t been working of coutts and r as to whether ts the requisite ;ervices,

7. At the end of six months from the date of deci.; cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual emptc cn in Umadevi, rees were still -*8l&r l9 SN,J wP 26722 2022 pending before Courts. Consequentty, several departments and instrumenta rities did not commence the one-time regurarization process. On the other hand, some Government depiftments or instrumentalities under-took the one_tiie iiirir" excluding 1?veral employees from consideration either on- the ground thit their ca.ses were pending in courts or due lo si;hier oversignt. n such . circumstances, the employees *no *iri- to be 'of considered in terms of para 53 the decisiin- in Umadevi, witt not lose their right to be considered for ijiUiirutior, merely because the one-time exercise was Zoipteted without . their cases, or because the sj/x' month period consi.lering mentioned in para 53 of lJmadevi has expired. The one_time exercise should consider att daity_wage/adioc/those employees wh.o had put in 10 years of corlinroir'r",iii" ii on ru.a.2006 t:i.tjiout.avlling the protection of any iniirii-ira"r, of courts or tribunals. If any emptoyer had neia tni ori ti*" exercise in terms of para 53 of umadevi, but did not consiie,r the cases of some emproyees who were entifled to the benefit of para 53 0,f Umadevi, the emptoyer concerned shoutd consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-tim" fne one time exercise will be concluded onty when a the emptoyees who are entitled to be considered in teirms of para 53 of-iiadevi, are so considered, "*iirir".- "ntitted

8. The ob t I h ve w,ithout the ro n lo o b a hoc /casual e e an en c o be ind the said -fo Fi, ,s tion of anvrn e id, Second ono Den n Is e Dara 53 of ou serv u rts or e ure f n m rde n ,o nv, e sure d, s n and then a f odi, e t ad- I d r e rov ton e e ,ate I t s n u a a on tt, u n n n o s h e a v, r h n I tm t. o 'he ls s o.4 I a ...,.,,.-.1 ::s-:-r::rrattttxt lli:i rl 20 SN,J wP 26722 2022 < n in terms of l e measure.

9. These appeals have been pending for more -han four years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appeilant (Tila panciayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases ol espondents o)f regularization within six months of the decisio"t in umadevi or thereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has l rected that the cases of respondents should be considered in i ccordance with law. The only fut-ther direction that needs be g. ren, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila panchayat, Gada 7 shoutd now undertake an exercise within six months, a ge,leral one_ time regularization exercise, to find out whethter tier: are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc emptoyees serving the Zita f tnchayai and if so whether such employees (inctuding the respo.t lents) fulfilt the requirements mentioned in para 53 of lJmadev . If they fulfill them, their seryices have to be regularized. If ; tch an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitt ng the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendincy of tt cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continu, tion of the said one time exercise within three months. It is nee.,ess to say that if the respondents do not fulfilt the requirement: of para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be regularised. I the employees who have completed ten years service do rt, t possess fhe educational qualifications prescribed for the posl, at the time of their a_ppointment, they may be considered for i:gutarization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of act irdingty. =se 1 13 Sta ofP L4. In the iud qment of the Aoex ourt in Ni I al Sinoh and sc 65, the o Supreme Court considered the case of .r ,sorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the S tate, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal t reir services were made available. It held that the mere fac t that wages were paad by the Bank did not render ilr I appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appoi ntment was ! r-!.Erv 2l SN,J wP 26722 2022 made by the State and disciplinary controt 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 acce t the defen that there ere no sa nctio ned oosts and so there wa i ustification for the State to tilise services of a e number of oeoo le like the for decades. It h ld that "sanctione oosts do aooellan not fall fro m heaven" and that the State has to c ate them conscr u of some n assessme t of need. Referrin q to Umadevi. it he! d that the aooellants before them were not arbitrarilv chosen, their a 'l n ointme of an 'irre a 'I n ointme een made in c nce with l orescri bed under the Police Act. 1861- nd the State t a Irt not he haarel not entitl arl ia ha frr sa bed int r s of the St rm ent ba as, accordinq to it. their aDDointments were pu relv temoorarv and not aqainst anv sanctioned oosts created bv the State. Itw as held that the iud ment in Umad evi cannot 22 SN,J \vP 26722 2022 become a Iicence for exoloi tion bv the S tate and its instrumenta lities and neither the Governmr 1rt of Puniab nor those oubli c secto Ba nks can continue su ch a o actice inconsistent with their oblioation to function ! r accordance nstitution.

15. The tudoment of the Aoex urt reoortec in 2015 Scc Online SC 1797 betwe n B.Srinivasulu a nd ot ers v Nellore Municioal Coroo ration Reo.bv its Com mtssr1ner. Nellore District, Andhr a Pradesh and others. in Da rt 11 :ular oaras 7 t and 8 reads as nder: L L I .Tt id G. but e of the aooellan find it d'ifficult acceDt the reasonin( ado ted bv (7) Hiqh Court. The rioht of the aDoellan ts fo se t reqularization flows from the G.O. No. 212 dated 22.4.19 t have been ln servtce of the first re ondent not a ty-prior to the lssuan LLIbe-Eslts eI G.O. till today. The respondent Municipality b. n9 a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Insp,t ) of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for i lmost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellant: and continued to extract work from the appellants. 8. In the circumstances, refusing the benef: of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appelle.tts approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not t tstified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying , he order under directing that the appellants, service: be regularised app.eal with effect from the date of their compteting their five year continuous service as was laid down by this ( curt in District Collector/Cha irperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh 8 Ors. 2009 (8) scc 480. -by

16. In Amarka Itt Rai v State of Bihar rEDor ed 20L scc 26s. me Court I held that ''l re objective he s UDre ( ltry".t 23 SN,J w 26722 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 ittegal, and to ensure securitv of m eS te w d t n r n se m f, 29 ear rove ea erv we re ed M t m ta rs" isd ts a extracted above. L7 fn Sta e f Jar han v mal Pra dr o oL4 7 23 simil rvt w ken b e s e rta dit sh da I, n n h co tinuouslv e u 4 ti, h I u ofl ca I ere re. t, e leoalo ase Sfa I U 7 e n I dino of fa n e m on the e o ciole laid down bv v 53 ad, a ft, Th s , iv. s c, nB n bv t, is Cou rt."

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6,.LZ.ZO2Z passed in W.p.No.21602 of 2O19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, yadadri, Natgonda District, which .r. 24 SN,J \\'P 26772 2022 had been upheld by the Division Bench rf this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2023 dated 10.10.2t1 23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex r )ourt dated

09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.

19. The iudqment of the Aoex Court in _ {ari Krishna Mandir TrustV.State of Maharashtra and Ot I ers reported in AIR 2O2 O Suoreme Court 3959 and in piI'ticular para Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows: "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 -bound to e: ercise such DOvver, where the Government oraDu lic au horitv has failed to exerc ise or has wron exercise discretion conferred uoonitbvas atut€ ; or a rule, or a oolicv decision of the Government or as exercised such discretion i rreleva nt consid ration. t ala fide. oro l t

101. In all such cases, the High Court must ssue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel perf trmance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discr: .ion conferred upon the Government or a public authority.,, 2(). The Division Bench of this Court in its JuE om ent dated 10 .o6.201 3 Dassed in W.A.Nos.782 oJ 201(l an d 854 of 20L2 while u Dholdino the Judqment daterJ .o9.2 10 d c.c.N .44 of2 o8 ( Dassed in W.P.N o 24377 ol 2OO7 an serv das der:- Y 25 SN,J \NP 26722 2022 "Fufther, it is manifest from the material on record that the services of the similarly placed persons who approached the la\ / Courts were regularized. The a ppella nt-Corporation also issued various oFfice orders/circulars dated 20.12.1989, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2OO9 for regularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25-T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand. engaging the respondents for such a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of Section 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respondents are entitled to regularization as directed in the impugned orders, as the learned single Judge considered all the aspects of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals." 2L. The Division ench of this Court in its Jud oment dated

19.09.2O17 oass ed in W.P.No.272L7 ot 2Ol7 reoorted in 2O18(2)ALD paoe 282 at oara 16 and Dara 18 observed as under:- *16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of L994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go- bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time a bsorption/regula rization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. 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 lJma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments bannlng reg ula rization/a bsorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of ot whittle t994 a nd G-O- Ms. No.21 2. dated 22-4.L994 do 26 SN,J wP 26't22 2022 down the width and the iudo ent in Mat iula Bashini's case (suora), does not lower the trai ctorv of the directions issued bv the Suoreme Court in Para 53 of its vi's case (suDra). It is . therefore, not iudoment in Uma De oermissible for the res Dondents to take she lter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. N0.212, dated 22.2! 1.994, to denv reoularizati on to the oetitioners, who ha :, admittedlv, satisfied the criteria laid dow n an Para No.53 of ud ment in U 's case s ( Y

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, rl ,ted 27 .6.20t7 , in OA No.1442 of 2074, on the file of the Tribune I is set aside and ition is allowed the writ ith the di 3ction to the resoonden ts to consider reoular isation of le services of the Detition ers aqainst the ex stinq vacar cies of Work ! satisfvinq the I rment in Uma ess must ,e co oleted of a coov of Devi's case (suDra). This o within two months from the date this order, " a laid dow ectors and No.53 of t them s ! ! 2

22. The Division Bench ofthis Court in its J u( qment dated 2L.O4.2020jassed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 rf 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 reoorted in 2O2O(4)ALI oaoe 379 at Daras 45, 48 and paraJ0 observed as under:- "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have l):en working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almo:J (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum ime-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously work ng without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date. 48. It is not known whv the 1st resDorr lent has not tollowed the decision in Uma D i's ca:;, r (supra), as I undertaken a one-ti me exerctse of Dre Dartn f dailv waoe c emolovees who had worked for more than sn (1O ) vears I without the intervention of the Courts and '['ibunats as on 10.4.2006 and subiect them to a process v€! ification as to wheth r thev are workino aoainst vaca1rt oosts and oossess reouisite qualifications for the oos ts, and if so, reo ul rtze thetr se rces. the list ned in M sari's 27 SN,J wP 26722 2022

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st res pondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularizati on of services on one-time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 16 and 21 of the Constitutl on of India; the respondents are directed to reou lartze on on e-time basis oetitioners' serv rces fro the date each f the oetitioners comDle e10 vearsof servtce on dailv w qes fro the in their aoooin tment. But, thev shall n be entitled to anv e sar (2) weeks f om the date of receiDt of coov o ftheo er." ercrs shall b

23. This Court oDrnes that in the presen res onden s failed to discharqe their dut requ est of the petitioner for reqular izatio n of Detit io ner's services, who is workinq as part time sweeper and f rther t in examinino er hi case, the t v t the Detitio er tn he last qrade ost of Dart time s weeper as reqular one for al I ouroos es bv or ntino la st orade Dav with periodi cal increment revised from time to time from the date of a pDo intment of the oetitio ner. in accorda n ce to law.

24. This Court oDines t at oeti loner rs entitled for conside ration of oetitione r's case for qrant of the relief as t Wri ln vle a ed rvations of the Aoex Court i va rao u e a iudom ents he vie l l l 28 SN,J wP 26722 2022 Di vrsron Bench of this Cou ln the Ju qmenl s referred to d extract above.

25. Takino into con sideration: - a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances o1, the case. b) The submissions made by the lear ted counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner and lear 1ed standang counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4. c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted abovr ) and again enlisted below: i)(2o2o) 1 SCC (L&S) (ii) 19eo(2) SCC Page 39G (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 201o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2O1s SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (201s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014)7 scc22s (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 39G9 (xiii) (2o06) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(a)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this t:ourt dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.7B2 of 2010 and 854 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment daterl OS.O9.2O1O 29 SN,J wP 26't22 2022 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated Lg.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2O17 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 ol 201-9 (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 all owed, the etitioner is directed to put-forth thecl aim of the petitioner fo req u la riza ion of itioner' rvtces m f the m ora rvices o r at th q rade oost of Sweeper as reqular one for all DU TDO sbv q ra nti no last qrad e Dav with oeriodical i crements revised r in the t from tme petitioner and all co nsequentia tb nefits, du lv enclosi o all date of aooointment oft e from t out- levant docu ments in s ooort of o itioner's case as tthint e Dresen writ oetition. withi n a oerl dof 30 uEFl SN,J wP 26i22 2022 one (O1) week from the date of receipt c,J copv of the or er n ts ha ml e nrl consider the th I o d same tnaccordan ce tol w, Inc nformitv natu rali usti qa no DDO v h Dfln cio u it,I of oersonal t titi n t m t rd s u e c u inU Dev assed bvt e 2006 (4) l) L P e e d m nt a e

1.: i77 of 20 o7 dated o8 .09. 20rOre DOrtedin 20 11 1) AL D, t: aqe 34a nd as confirmedin w.A.N o.782 of2o10 dated 10, also asoer Division Bench Judqment oft his Cou 19 .o9. 20 17 pass ed ln w.P .N 27217 of 20o,,_ reoorted in 20 18(2) ALD DAqe 242 and a so th Judq ment of .I.A.Nos.l of 2O20 in 1 of 2O19 in W.p.No.23! '57 this Court d ted 2 .o4.20 20 D l!'t sron Ben h t6.2O 13 a se a nd I o e 2 o 4 LD e37 f 20r9 rrd a arn d recei Dt of a copv of this order 1 the date of dulv 1 akino o h A x a u Ka n id ra on th se v exC rt in he var ted a s nd h id down bv u n fr3 'red toa nd cul r ara N .53 o ( I the nt of m A ex Cou vt an c f Sta te of C e he decrs! n ! ,t:.I I t 31 SN,J \t/P 26',722 2022 to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/- A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFTCER //TRUE COPY// One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLT NANDA (For Her LadYshiPs Kind Perusal) ',. tn" Principal Secretary, Panchayathraj Department' Telangana Secretariat' Hvderabail, State of Telangana' r The princioat secretari,"r'i'nl'nie ano Planning Department, Telangana Secretariai, Hyderabad, State ot lelangana' .. 3. The District cor rectJi"a ni'e'h;1n ;-"iSelection Com m ittee and M i ni m um Waoes Committee, Wanaparty ulstncl' 4 ii,?Ei' ;iE;;;;ti J": di+i;5i,' Zta C i ii -p ^ri 5. The Mand al parisrraidei"eio-p*"ni 6m""r' Atmakur Mandal' Wanaparty 6. 11 LR CoPies. ;. il;u";;; iecretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law' Justice and companv shad' wanapa rtv District' District. Affairs, New Delhi- B.TheSecretary,TelanganaAdvocatesAssociationLibrary,HighCourt Hvderabad lOUTl r t"H':t8Ei'"?$i3ff to*..n, Advocate roPUCl 10.Two CCs to Gp rOn si-nVrbES-rr,-UiSti bourtiorthe State of Telangana, at 11.Ohe CC to SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA' SC FOR MPP ZPP IOPUCI 12.Two CD CoPies PSKb/ HIGH COURT DATED:0811012025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.26722 ot 2022 ,s C )( ()- 1, t \'' a- tL l- q.f ll: '.:.-:.::i.; ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS A n 1 t) tl )9