R. basis. As per the latest judgment of the Apex Court in State of v. Uma Devi

Heard Sri.C. Raja Shekar Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri.p.Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., appearing on behalf of the respondents. ,* "1r'

2. praver as under: ,, ;; :"' rei#h.' "....to issue an appropriate Writ, Order of direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and to declare the impugned orders in proceedings No.SCES ISEC/2022/395, dt.L2-4- 2022 of the 2nd respondent by rejecting the case of the petitioner for regularization of services of the petitioner as Scavenger under the control of the 2nd respondent is as highly illegal arbitrary, unreasonable, non application of .mind and also in violation of principles of natural justice and al'so in violation of Art. L4, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and declare the same as bad-in-law and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner as a Scavenger by taking her services from the date of her appointment i.e. L9-07-2OLL and with all service benefits including arrears of pay by fixing the pay scale attached to the said post and to pass....', 4 stt,J w.P.No.26772_2022

3. The petitioner was engaged as a female scavenger on contingoncy basis by the 3'd respondent college with effect from L9.07.20tL, pursuant to a sanctioned note dated

27.06.20tt and petitioner has been in continuous service since then. Later, the petitioner was transferred to the 4th resllondent school on 26.09.2018, where petitioner continuers to work. Despite putting irr over 7 years of service, the petitioner's employment has not been regulari:zed, nor has the pay scale applicable to regular employeres been extended to her. From 2018 onwards, petitioner was forced to sign ad-hoc contract bonds under threat of discontinuation. Hence, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.tt.2018 seeking regularization of petitiont:r's services. Though this Court passed an order dated 2,+.L2.2021 in W.P.No.3608 of 2019, the claim of the petitioner was rejected without proper consideration, even though similarly situated employees were regularized. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. t--- ^ .- - 5 sN) W.P.No.26772_2022

4. PERUSED THE RECORD: A) Sub: Order dt: 24.t2.2O21 issued by the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana in WPNo.360B/2019 filed by Smt. Kalyani Kumari- Reg. Ref: Representation dated: 08-01-2022 submitted to General Manager, SCES, by Smt K.Kalyani Kumari. Reference to representation dated: 08.01.2022 submitted by Smt. K Kalyani Kumari addressed to General Manager, Singareni Collieries Educational Society, Kothagudem for regularize of employment as "Scavenger" or in any other suitable post to you. It is herebv informed that vou were emoloved as female Scavenoer at Sinoareni women's colleoe, Kothaoudem on contract basis with remuneration of Rs.2,5OO/- oer month till the end of academic vear. Thereafter on vour reouest made to SCES. vou have been continued as Scavenoer and vou have executed an aoreement of contract for service for each academic vear and oavino as oer Minimum Waqes Act and at present Rs.12,898/-(Twelve Thousand Eioht Hundred and Ninetv Eioht Ruoees onlv) oer month. As such vou were not eliqible for feoularization of vour services as Scavenoer or anv other suitable oost in the Sinoareni collieries educational Societv and accordinolv vour aoolication dated O8.O1.2O22 cannot be considered. B) The counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the sN,t W.P-No-26772 2022 extracted hereunder: "...In reply to Para 2, it is submitted that the petitioner was deoloved as a Scavenoer at Sinoareni Women's Junior Colleoe, Kothaqudem on continoencv basis on a remuneration of Rs. 2.5OO/- ner month from t9.O7.2OLL. It is submitted that the petitioner was deployed to work as Scavenger since the regular Scavenger working there expired on 13.06.2011 and the petitioner was posted due to exigency and was engaged as scavenger on temporary basis. It is submitted that for the said reasons the petitioner was deployed to work as Scavenger and was not issued any Office Order appointing her as Scavenger and as such her claim that she was appointed as Scavenger and that she should be regularized is not tenable. It is submitted that the services of the petitioner were engaged purely on temporary basis to meet the contingency situation arising out of the death of earlier regular Scavenger and since the Institution is a College, there was dire need to deploy someone on urgent basis to maintain cleanliness of bathrooms and toilets. It is submitted that as the vacancv of Scavenoer was not filled uo immediatelv, the services of oetitioner were continued due to exiqencies and her waoes were raised from time to time in accordance with G.Os issued bv the Govt. from time to time in keeoinq with Minimum Waoes Act and as such at oresent she is drawino waqes of Rs.11,343/- per month as oer G.O.Ms.No.1O8, dated 08.O2.2OO9 includino DA which is enhanced everv six months as oer Telanoana Gazette Notification No.121 dated 23.O4.2O18 issued bv Commissioner of Labour, .Govt. of Telanoana...." 7 SN,t W.P.No.26772_2022 (c) are extracted hereunder: rt is not disputed by the rearned standing counset for the respondents that the petitioner has been continuously working on N.M.R. basis. As per the latest judgment of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka & ors vs. Uma Devi (cited supra), the persons, who are working for long y.rr" on NMR basis, deserve to be considered for regurarization. rn view of the fact that the petitioner ln the present case has been discharging duties on NMR oasis since a long time, her services deserve to be regularized. Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regutarization as expeditiousry as possible, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

5. Learned counser for the petitioner appearing on beharf of the petitioner submits that the persons who are working for long years on NMR basis deserves to be considered as per the Judgment of state of Karnataka and others ys .. u* '--J-"*=* .-" 8 sN) W.P.No.26772-2022 tlma Devi and others' and hence, contends that petitiorrer is entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ Petition.

6. Lt:arned Standing Counsel for respondents submits that thr: petitioner has been discharging her duties since, 2011 without any break and in pursuance of the order of this Corrrt daled 24.t2.2021 whereby, the respondents were directed to consider the representation of the petitioner afresh,rnd pass appropriate orders on representation made by the petitioner seeking regularization of her services as scaven(ler, the 2nd respondent considered the representation dated 08.01.2022 of the petitioner and rejected his claim vide inrpugned order dated 12.04.2022 on the ground that the petitioner has been working purely on temporary basis as per the agreement of contract for services executed by the pel:itioner at the beginning of every academic year and receivirrg the salary as per the Minimum Wages Act for the said services, hence, the petitioner is not eligible for regularization as scavenger or any other suitable post in the Singar,:ni Collieries Educational Society. ' (zooe) a scc r 9 W.P.No.26ZZ2_2022 sN,t

7. ment, not against "36. There are some of the em ployees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establish particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus U madevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure services be regula rized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more sh ould have been regularized. It would not be p roper to regulate them for consideration of reg ularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. H owever shall not.be entifled to cla iming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the a ge of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have it is made ctear that purpose of oension.,, 10 SN,J W.P.No.26772-2O22 gerson$ as reqular one. hereunder:- / L\ sN,t W.P.No.26772-2O22

10. hereunder: *12. Despite being tabelled as "part-time workersr" 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 the 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. i

13. the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the 72 sN,t W.P.No.26772-2022 alrpellants' termination demonstrates the inherent n,3ed for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with alother further underscores that the work in qJestion was neither temporary nor occasional.

24. The landmark judgment of the United State ir the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent e.rample from the private sector, illustrating the c()nsequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as irdependent contractors, thereby denying them enployee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were eltitled to the same benefits as regular erployees. The Cciurt noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the p.actice of hiring temporary employees or irrdependent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the p.inciple that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, slrould determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It hiohliqhts

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to crrnstitutional 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 _a 13 SN,J W.P.Na.26772 2022 between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments be considered for regularization 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 employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, judgment's explicit overlooking the acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively Weaponizino it against emplovees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.

27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended perlods, especially when.their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private !4 SNJ w,P.No.26772-2O22 sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.

28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed' The impugned orCers passed by the High Court and the Tribunal ar3 set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated

27. 10.2018 are quashed; It. rarorr Id corrnted for i r ir(rst-

11. "115. It is manifest that the Aooellant Workmen 15 sN,t W.P.No.26772_2022 agreement. At this juncture, recall the broader critique employment practices as done this court in Jaggo v. Union paragraphs: it would be appropriate to of indefinite ..temporary,, by a recent judgement of of fndia in the fottowing "r;;;;;;;, "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious Lmptoymer; often characterized by lack of benefits, ;oO i".urity, 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 onry mirrors the detrimentut iruna, observed in the gig economy but arso sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in govern mental operations. I I I I 16 sN,t W.P.No.26772-2O22

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, pafticularly in government institutions' often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. while thefoundationalpurposeoftemporarycontracts rnay have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to 'employees' These practices manifest in several waYS: tT) identical tasks. o Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seeninthepresentcase.Thispracticeundermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers toastateofconstantinseburity,regardlessofthe 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 thern and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. .UsingoutsourcingaSaShield:Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set ) 17 SNJ W.P.No.26772 2022 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 justifo 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 evident on record. the degree of statutory violation 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, L947, and that thev were engaged in I 18 SN,t W.P.No.26772-2022 nreaningful back waoes. is herehy set aside with the lrllowinq directions: I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6EandSection6NoftheU.P.IndustrialDisputes Act, Lg47, is declared illegat' All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service' II. The Respondent Employer shall rei Appellant Workmen in their respective posts akin to the duties they previously within four weeks from the date of this nstate the posts (or performed) judgment. (^ 19 sN,J W.P.No.26772 2022 consequential benefits, such as seniority and elioibility for promotions, if any. III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. initiate a fair and transparent process for regulariz,ino the Appellant Workmen within six oosts. In assessing regularization, the Employer shall not impose educational or that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessarv administrative processes to ensure these longtime employees are not indefinitely retained on da'ily wages cortrarv to .statutory and equ

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."

12. l i .4..,**.. 20 SN,t W.P.No.26772-2022 "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitled to the ntinimum of the regular pay-scale, merely for the reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The full bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the ntinimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. 7'he exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:- "(1) A daily wager, ad ttoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2) But if daily wagers. ad hoc or contractual appointees are not aopointed against regular sanctioned posts and their services a,re availed continuously- with notional breaks. by the State Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient lono period i.e. for 7O Years- such shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pav scale without anv allowances on the assumption that work of perennial nature is available and having worked for such long considered separately in terms of legallY oermissible scheme. / 21 SNJ W.P.No.26772_2022 (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 shatt be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months."

13. under:

4. The decision in State of Karnataka v. tJmadevi was rendered on 10.4.2006 (reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1). In that case a 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 terins 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 Sfafe or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court 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 74 and 16 of the constitution. This court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : 22 sN,! w-P.No.25772 2022 "53 One a s to ba clar,'ified- e-,|r! (not iileoal apoointtnenBl as exolained in S'V' Aennanaeoa r$aZ ftt Srca tZAlru Naniuidaooa 17972 (71 SCC 4O9l and B'N' Naqaraian [7 979 G )scc5O7l and referredto ,n ,n dulv sandioned vacant oosfs nioht have been ma eand the em vees have but without fhe dulv ualified ra 75 bove. n n tribunils. ihe auestion of reaularization of the servicel of quch emPlovees mav have to be Orincioles seitled bv this Court in the cases iidgment. In that context- the llnion of India' 'heir instrumentalities s,hould take steos to reaularize as a one-iime measure. the services of such irreaularlv aooointed, who have worked for ten vears or more in duly sanctioned oosts but not undet cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that rnme ts Sta u those vacant sanctioned Dosts that reouire to be filled up. in cases where . temoorarv emplovees or dailv wagers ate beina now emploved. The Process must be set in motion within six months frorn this date. .... "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against ' regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are tulfilled : 23 SNJ W.P.No.26772_2022 (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the ,State Government or its instrumentality shoutd 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 irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications .and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 7O.4.2OO6r.

6. The term 'one-time measltre' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working 24 sN't W.P,No.26fl2_2o22 aqainst vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification fctr the post and if so, regularize their services.

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in L"madevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularization process. On the cther hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise e'xcluding 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 eniitled to be coltsidered 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 llmadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should <:onsider all daily-wage/adholthose employees who had put in 70 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 tNithout 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 ,:onsider the cases of some employees who were entitled to lhe benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also,-as a continuation of the cne-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. 25 sN,t W.P.No.26772_2022 effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on IO.4.2O06 (the date of decision in Umadevir without the protection vacant posts. possessing the requisite qualification, fact that the employer h.as not undertaken such undertaken only in regard to a limited few. will not Umadevi as a one-time measure.

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 law, The only further direction that needs be given, in view of lJmadevi, is that the Zita panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- tirne regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casuat/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of tJmadevi. If they fulfill them, their Services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or 26 s,v,, W.P.No.26772-2022 omitting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these case, then their cases shall have to be considered .in continuation of the said one time exercise ttrithin three months' It is needless to say that if the respondents do not futfill the requirements of Para 53 of Ltmadevi, their senrices need not be regularised' If the etmployees who have completed ten years service do not t,ossess the educational quatifications prescribed for the Stost, at the time of their appointment' they maY be consideredforregularizationinsuitablelowerposts.This itppeal is disposed of accordingly' L4. Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State' whose wageswerepaidbyBanksatwlrosedisposaltheirservices weremadeavailable.Itheldthatthemerefactthatwages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was madebytheStateanddisciplinarycontrolvestedwiththe state:. It held that the creation of a cadre or sahctioning of post:; for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authorityoftlreState,butiftheStatedidnotchooseto crea.teacadrebutchosetomakeappointmentsofpersons creatingcontractualrelationship,itsactionisarbitrary.It -P,/ 27 SNJ W.P.N0.26772 2022 assessment of need. Referring to Umadevi, it held that the prescribed under the Police Act. 1861, and the State the State. It was held that the judgment in Umadevi cannot become a licence for exploitation by the State and with the Constitution. paras 7 and 8 reads as under: 28 sN,t W.P.No.26772-2022 (7) We find it difficult to accept the reasonino adopted Qr the High Court. The right of the appellants to seek regularization ftows from the G.O. No.272 dated 22.4.1994. The appellant have been in service of the first respondent not only prior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subseauent to the issue of G.O. till today. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without reryularising the service of the appellants and continued to e.<tract work from the appellants. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the 8, a,bove mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants a,cproached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not jtrstified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed nrodifying the order under appeal by directing that the a,opellants' services be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous seruice as this Court in District w'as laid down by Cottector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 480.

16. SCC 265, the Suoreme Court held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regutarization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not itlegat, and to ensure security of ,, { I 29 sN,t W.P.No.26772_2022 extracted above. Supreme Court and it was held as follows : principle laid down by this Court in llmadevi case (State of Karnataka v llmadevi (2O06) 4 SCC I : 2O06 SCC (L&S) 73) at para 53 squarely apoties to the with by this Court."

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2OZZ passed in W.P.No.276O2 of 2019 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, yadadri, Nalgbnda Distriet, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in w.A.No.937 0f 2023 dated 10.10.2023 and atso confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLp No.31g4t ot 2024.

19. 30 sN) W.P.No.25772-2022 Nos.10t0 and 1O1 held as follows: ":.00. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Corrstitution of India, not only have the plwer to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of nrandamus, a oolicy decision of the Government or has exercised consideration.

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

20. dated tO.O6.2O13 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2-O1O and 854 passedl in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 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 appellant-Corporation erlso issued various office orders/circulars dated i'.O.12.1989, 11.09. L992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 11.7.2009 for regularization of casuaUcontract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25-T of the ID Act prohibits tunfair labour practice by any employer or workman. As can tle seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, r:ngaging the respondents for such a long and continuous lleriod of time on casual basis is nothing but unfair labour 31 sN,t W.P.No.26772 2022 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. 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 notewofthy 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.L994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one- time absorption/regularization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of L994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994, 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 regularization/absorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, do not whittle down the width and the iudgment in Manjula Basfirni's case (supra), does not 32 sN't w.P.No.25772_2022 Suoreme Court in Para for the resoondents to take shelter.under Act 2 of l-994 and G.O. Ms. No.212 dated 22.4.1994, to denv reqularization to the oetitioners, who have, admittedlv. satisfied the riteria laid down in Para No.53 of the iudoment in Uma Devi's case (suora). t8. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2017, in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the 'fribunal is set aside and the wrat petition is allowed with the direction to the resoondents to consider reoularisation of the services of the petitioners aoaanst the existino vacancies of Work Inspectors +ri ih6ir. crf ieCrrinrr iha criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the judoment in mr rc+ Jra f<r rnra I Thic , , rn2 completed within two months from the date of receiot of a coov of this order." iharrr <rrhi '< anca rnn.rinf ,:rat ,

22. The Division Bench of t is Court in its Judoment dated 21.O4.2O2O oassed in I .A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 rl 6..ra 2 n.l w.P.Nn 2?OE7 .rf ,nl O na;+ad irr ,nrnrr.l^l 379 at Daras 45, 48 and ra 5O observed as 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. rt is n.lt knourn rarhw the 1st raenandent as not followed the decision in uma Devi's case (suora)' as exola ncd (suora) MI ?a K *y --- { : i 33 SN,t w.P.No.26772_2022 undertaken a one-time exercise of preparino the list of d"ily *"9. ".rlor".s *ho had *orked fo. -or" tha' ten (1o) years *ithout the intervention of the Cor.tr ard Tribunals as on 1O.4.2OO6 and subject them to a process ,erification as to whether they are wo.king aoainst ,acant posts and possess rebuisite qualifications for the posts, and if so, regularize their services.

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is ailowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respon?ent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one-time basis are declared as iliegal, arbitrary and violative of Articres L4, L6 and zL of the constitution ot India; tne responaents are or.-ti-", b".ir p.tition"rr' r"rri"." f.orn tJr" d"t" each of the petitioners complete 10 yffi on d"ity *"9"r f.o,'' th" initiur dit.G- ofE "ppoint-.nt.,.8!rt. "ntitGdloE monetarv r,elief. The said exercise shall be done *ithin t*,o (?) *."kr fro- th. d"t" of@ of the order." th"y rh"ll ,ot b.

23. A bare perusal of the record clearly indicates the fact that the petitioner had been working with the respondent's school since the year, 2Ol1 on contingent basis on the remuneration of Rs.2rsoo/- per month at Singareni Women,s 'Coilege, Kothagudem and in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the respondents clearly admitted that the petitioner is engaged purety on temporary basis to meet the contingent situation and the services of the petitioner were continued due to exigency and the petitioner's wages were raised from \ 34 sN,l w.P.No.26772_2022 time to time in accordance with G.Os issued by the Government from time to time keeping in vievrr of the Minimrrm Wages Act.

24. This Court opines that the petitioner has been working with respondents from the year 2O11 to till date as a ful! time scavenger, hence, the representation made by the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground that the petitioner has been working purely on temporary basis as per the agreement executed by the petitioner with the Singareni Collieries Educational Society at the beginning of every academic year on petitioner's request and has been continuing as a scavenger for many years. Hence, this Court opines that the repre:sentation of the pet-tioner dated 04.o1.2022 needs; to be reconsidered in accordance to law, in view of the clear admission in the counter filed on behalf of the respondents at para No.S that petitioner had been continuing as a Scavenger since 19.O7.2OL1, duly itaking into consideration the observataons of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) 35 SNJ W.P.No.26Z72_2O22 a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the tearned counset appearing on beharf of the petitioner and rearned standing counser for singareni corieries co Ltd appearing on beharf of the respondents. The order dated 24.,.2-2021 passed in favour of the (referred to and c) petitioner in W.p.No.36Og of 20tg extracted above) d) The order impugned Ref. No.ScES/sEC | 2}zz / ggs, dated L2.O4.ZOZ2 passed by the General Manager (Education) secretary/scES in comptiance to the direction of this Court, dated 24.12.2ci2i: passed in W.p.No.36Og of 2Ot9 (referred to and extracted above) e) The specific averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the petitioner is continuousry working since 1g.o7.2,,r.- as scavlnger under the controt of 2nd respondent. f) 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) lseo(2) scc page 396 l. ;,**i 36 sN,l W.P.No.26772-2022 (iii) 2O2s rNSC 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2oL7) 1 scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(e) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (v'iii) 2015 SCC OnlineSC t797 (ix) (201s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc223 (xi) SLP No.32a47 ot 2O24 (:rii) AIR 2O2O SuPreme Court 3969 (:xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2011 (L) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD Page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD Page 379 / , 37 sN) W.P.No.26772 2022 order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand close-d' sD'-P' Porlr'ra KRI'HNA i ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / 6 SECTION OFFICER ,/TRUE COPY// oneFairCopytotheHon'b|eMRSJusticeSUREPALLINANDA (For Her LordshiPs kind Perusal) \ \ ro, '-',. ,n" chairman and Managing Director, The singarenicollieries co' Ltd'' Kothagudem L' 2.TheGene.alManager/SecretaryTheSingareni.CollieriesEducational -Basthi, S.iii"tv, O r. r.ro.-U ttn"-1 4, Writers Kothagudem'

3. The Principal, singareni collieries womens college, Kothagudem Town and District.

4. The Head Master, Singareni collieries High School, Kothagudem Town and District.

5. 11 LR CoPies 6. The Undr-'r Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. The set;retary, Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High court e;itoingl, nydeiabad. - .-# cb to sri c Raja Sekhai nffi66-cate toPUCl -tine

7. SriHarshaReddy(SCforSingareniCollieriesCo.LTD)

8. 9. One CC to Sri P. loPucl

10.Two CD CoPies TJ HIGH COURT DATED i10,t0712025 ORDER WP.No.26772 of 2022 r. i l-: 1 tAS ,-. () 0 5 tEB 2026 .-& ., :/,. I I -ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOU-T COSTS v -.--.'- '. "F t-_&'_.*!'*-