AND v. Rural Employment Department

confirme 20 11(1) ALD Paqe 234 as O. dated 10.06.2 13 and also order, dated 19.09.20 1.7 201 passed in w.P.No.272L7 of 2OL7 reoorted in o18 (2) ALD e 282 and also th e order dated L.O4.20 O Dassedin Paq W.P.No.2 3O57 of 2O19 re Dorted in 2 o20(4) ALD Paqe 379. 5 resDondent No.4 submits that Learned standino counsel a DDEanno on behalf of the the q rievance of the etitioner as u -forth i he re nt Wr Petitio had n a dd ressed to the resoond ents herern as on date a nd fore, the Detitioner can ot com lain tna ction on the oart of res Do nd e nts herein in con siderinq the qrievan eof the oetition r and hence, the relief as Draved for bv the itio n rinth rese n wit nnot b ra nt o Mandam us can be rssued aqain st the resDonde nts and n here under as souoht for and the oetitio er mav be directedto ut-forth the D t t oner's o rrevan ce as Dut- 6 SN. J t\p 2323 7 2021 in the Drese nt Writ Petition bv wav o a deta i led reD resentation to th res Don dents herein and uDon rece iDt of the said reo rese ntation, the resDo n t ents would consider t e same in ccorda nce to lav,r within a r eriod.

6. Learned coun se I appea rinq on behalf of th : etition r _ :he tearned standi nal counsel a DDEA Ttnoon beh alf of the 'espond ent No.4

7. The Apex Court in the iudq ment reDorted n (2O 20) I SCC (L&S) in Prem Sinqh v State of Uttar Fradesh and oth rs, at Dara36h d as under: .,] "36. There are some of the employees who have r regularized in spite of having rendered the servico: 40 or more years whereas they have been supere,r As they have worked in the work-charged establ not against any particular project, their ser,rices r have been regularized under the Government in:il and even as per the decision of this Court in Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in decision has laid down that in case services hel rendered for more than ten years without the cov€ Court's order, as one-time measure, the seru regularized of such employees. In the facts of tl those employees who have worked For ten years shou.ld have been regularized. It would not be p,1 regulate them for consideration of regularization ;t: have been regularized, we direct that their serl ot been for 30- nuated. ;hment, rrg ht to -uctions itate of he sa id e been - of the ces be 3 CaSe, T more lper to others ces be 7 SN, J wp,23231]021 treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the reo ul a r establishment and the services rendered bv them rioht f m the dav thev entered the work-c haroed estab Iishment shall be counted as oualifvinq service for ouroose of D ens on." I The Ape Court in the case of Dharwad Dis rict PWD Literate Dailv Waoe Emolovees Association Vs State of Ka rnata k reoorted in 199O(2 ) SCC Paoe 396 lai o ri nciole that the State should not k eD a Derson in tem Dorarv or adhoc service for lono oeriod and have to treat such perso s as reqular one. 9 Para No.53 of the of the iud o ment of the A ex Cou rt in the State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi, dated 10.04.2006 reoorted in ( 2OO6)4SCC1is extracted hereunder:- 1 scR 128 R.N. Nan unda "53. One asDect needs to be clarified. There mav be cases where irreqular a oDointments (not illeqal a oDoint ments) as explained in S,V. Nara VANADDA 196 1 scc 409 I and B.N, Naqaraian 11979 (4) Scc 5071 and referred to in ara 1 5 above ofd ulv o alifie d V been made and the emoloVees have continu ed to work for ten ve rs or more but without the ns in du! vaca nt sa nctio mt ht 1 72 SN. J \rp_l.l2i 7-2021 5 r a a inte rvention of orders of the co u rts ,: ' of tri als. The ouestion of reoularization of the s1 rvices of such em D lo ees ma v have tobec onsid er€l on merits in the Iiqht of the princioles sett led bv th s Co rt in th abov ereferred to an d in th e ca se liqht of thi s iudqment. In that context, the Union of India, the state Governments an enta li es on e-ttme s measure, the servi ces of such ir qul;r'lv ADDointed, who have workedfort en vearsor re tn sanctioned oosts b ut not u nder cover o orders of the courts or of tribun ls and should urtttr :r ensur reo ular recruitm ents are und erta ke rr to fill vaca nt sanctio ned posts that reo uiretrbefi lled uo. tn caSes whe tempora ry emDlovee s() dailv waoers lnq now emploved. The process -lUStb e set in within six months from this dal:r . .... 10. The iudqment of thCA ex Court d ate:r I 2O.1 .2024. reported an 2024 LawSuit(SC ) 12O9 in Ja others v Union of India and oth ers, ancl th releva nt Daraqraoh Nos.12, L3, 24, 26,27 and 2A rre extra ed here u nd er: Anita f .I "12. Despite being labelled as "pa. workers," the appellants performed essential tasks on a daily and conti basis over extensive periods, rangingl over a decade to nearly two decades, engagement was not sporadic or teml in nature, instead, it was recurrent, rr: and akin to the responsibitities tyt associated with sanctioned posts. Morr the respondents did not engage any personnel for these tasks duringy appellants tenure, underscoring indispensable nature of their work. -time I UOUS Their ora ry ;ular, ically over/ 9 SN, .I \!p 2323',7 _2021 o re ula The claim bv the resoonden lacks m

13. hese wer the nature of the work oerformed bv the aooellants was oerennial and fund amental to the functionino of the offices. The recu rrin I 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 appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set oF workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case oF Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case. MicrosoFt classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It hiqhliohts the iudici arv's role in rectifv t sificati receive fai r treatment worker l0 SN. ] rrp 2 i2-i7 2021

26. While the judgment in Uma Devr ( ;u pra ) soughi to curtail the practice of backdoor n t ries and ensure appointments adhered to consti - tional principles, it is regrettable that its principl rs are often misinterpreted or misapplied to . This legitimate claims of long serving employec: judgment aimed to distinguish between ' leg a l" "irregu la r" rents. appoinlr It cateooricallv hetd that emDIov€,( s in irreoular aooo intments, who were enoaledin dulv sanctioned posts and had i:rved continuouslv for more than ten vears i rould be considered for reqularization as a one- time measure. However, the laudable int:nt of the judgment is being subverted when inst t ltions rely on its dicta to indiscrim inately rejr:r t the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but mere 1 lack adherence to procedural formalities. Gove - rment departments often cite the judgment in Unr, Devi (supra) to argue that no vested rii; rt to regularization exists for temporary emp ( yees, judgment's : (plicit overlooking the acknowledgment of cases where regulariz.,l on is appropriate. This selective aoolication d !.! torts the iudqment's soirit and ouroose, effer; ivelv weaoonizinq it aoain st emDlovees who have rendered indisoensable services _ over d ecades.

27. In light of these considerations, i opinion, it is imperative for gover.r departments to lead by example in providir and stable employment. Engaging worker:; temporary basis for extended periods, es;r, when their roles are integral to the organiz; functioning, not only contravenes intern: labour standards but also exposes the organi to legal challenges and undermines emlt morale. By ensuring fair emplo'7 practices, government institutions reduce the burden of unnecessary !itigr I OUr 3 fair on a cia Ily t io n's ,ional n ent tio n, 1l SN-. J \rP 23237 2021 promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with internationat standards and sets a positive precedent for the private 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 orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 .10.20 18 are quashed ; . The aooellants shall be taken on dutv forthwith a nd their reoularised forthwith. servrces However, the aooellants shall not be Decunla rv entitle d benefits/ back waqes for the period thev have not worked for but would of service for the said oeriod and the same would be counted for their oost- retiral benefits." led to continui n

11. The Jud ment of the Aoex Court dated 31.O1.2O25 .SHRIPAL AND AN OTHER v. reoorted in 2o2s rNsc 144 i NAG AR NIGAM, GHAZIA BAD". in oa rticular. the relevant Dara Nos.15 to 19 are extracted here u nde r: *15. It is manifest that the Aooellant Workmen contin uo US v renderedth rr services over severa I e vears, someti mes soannino more than a decade. t2 SN. J rvp 21237 2021 h Ev n if c -allorar r u nder uster rolls were nott)'odu failure of Em lo uch reco rd s- ;a n adv rse o infere n ce we!l-esta b lis;l ,ed labour lufl sprudence. Indian labou r law str q nolv disfavors Der Petu a I dailv-waoe or contractu al e:r rqa qemen ts in ctr umsta nces where the work ts !n na ure, work'3 's who fulfil requirem ents VC:; rr after on ornq munici pal lermanen t and leo allv. ,a no be dismi ed sum a qenu n the a bsen ce of aqreement. At this juncture, it would b I appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefin t: ..temporary,, employment practices as done by a rece i judgement oF this court in Jaggo v. Union of India ir the following paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse of tempor: -y employment contracts, as exemplified in this r.i se, reflects a broader systemic issue that adr:rsely affects workers' rights and job security. .1 the private sector, the rise of the gig econom! has led to an increase in precarious employmeni lrrangements, often characterized by lack of benefi,: , job security, and fair treatment. Such practic:, -have criticized for exploiting workers ar r undermining labour standards. Government instiiu: lns, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairn,:;s and justice, bear an even greater responsibility o avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse tf temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the det- mental trends observed in the gig economy bu: also sets a concerning precedent that can erode pr blic trust in governmental operations. SN, J wp 21237 2021 D D n e ral to the functionin of an institu edf r work that is essential labelled as "tem orarv reqular em ovees.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism ta 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices maniFest in several ways: o Misuse of "Temoora rv" Labels: Emolovees n a n are often "contractual" even when their roles mirror those of Such mlsc assification de Drives workers of dionitv, securitv, and benefits that reoular emolovees are entitled to desoite oerformino identical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quaiity or duration of their service. . Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skili development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates 14 SN, J $P_23237 2021 a deliberate effort to bypass the ob i lation to offer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benel'i employees are often denied fundarr such as pension, provident fund, he:i and paid leave, even when their decades. This lack of social security and their families to undue hardshi: cases oF illness, retirement, () circumstances." s: Temporary ental benefits Ith insu ra nce, ten ure spans ;ubjects them especially in u nforeseen re Employer's Consequently, s with some :bly, this only /orkmen were ertain status. tance of their r, it failed to ul back wages tory violation

16. The High Court did acknowledge : inability to justify these abrupt terminations. it ordered re-engagement on daily wa!r( measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrell perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant \ left in a marginally improved yet still un While the High Court recognized the impo work and hinted at eventual regularizati() afford them continuity of service or meaninil commensurate with the degree of statL evident on record. 17. In light of these considerations, ll e Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Worknr )n stands in les. Once it is violation of the most basic labour law princil established that their services were terfir lated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the l. P. Ind ustria I Disputes Act, L947, and that thev werg enoaqed in rs cannot be essential, Derennial duties, these worke releqated to perpetualuncertaintv. Wl ile concerns muntct al et and com l5 SN- J $p 21217 l02l recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolv e the EmDlover of statuto o bl io ation s or neqate Indeed, b u rea ucratic limitations cannot trump the leqitimate riqhts of workmen who have se rved continuouslv in de facto reoular roles for an exte nded oeriod. eouatable entitleme nts. tm nt ned order nft h Hi lt h Court to tha IR Th orkmen to futu re extent thev confine the A D nel la nt e no a (Iement without contanu itv or dailv-waoe meaninoful back wa oes- is herebv set asid e with the followino directions: w I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within Four weeks from the date of this judgment. the dateof Their entire DE riod of absence (fro termination until actual reinstatem nt) shall be counted for continui of service and all conseouenti al benefits, such as s nioritv and romotio ibilit n 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 I t6 SN. J \!p_2-1217 2021 . ! actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within thrr:: months from the date of their reinstatement. Iv. The Resoondent Emolover i: ; 6lirs ed to in itiate a fair and tra n sDa re n ocess f f requlariz inq the Aooella t Workrr en with in six months from the date of reinst tement, dulv consr derino the fact that thev hi re oerform ed perennial municipal duties akin o Derm anent Losts. In a essinq requla r zation Emolover shall not rmDose e u catio nal or Droced u ra I criteria if such o the t e urrem n Aooellant Workmen or to simi r rlv situated reqular emDlovees in the past. o the extent that sanctioned va ca ncies for su< dutie s exist or are quared, the Resoondent I nolove r shall exoedit al! necessarv administra ve processes to ensure these lonoti e emol< l,ees are not indefinitelv retained ondailv waq C s contrarv to statutorv an d uitabl e n rms. troa ctiv, v a were n v l I I J t e ? T I

19. In view of the above, the appeal(:, filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(;) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed." L2. The Apex Cou rt in a iudqm ent reportec an (2Ot7l1 S,upreme Court Cases 148, in State of puniil r and others vs Jaoiit Sinoh and others at Paras 54 and ts sub- Da ras (1)( 2)(3). of the said iudo ment observed as u nder: "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, wl upon the above controversy had concluded, employees were not entitled to the minimum of I scale, merely for the reason, that the activiti(,: daily-wagers and regular employees were similar ile adjudicating hat temporary te regular pay- carried on by The full bench t7 SN, J \Yp 21217 2021 however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees' The exceptions recorded by the fult bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder: - "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee agiinst the regutar sanctioned posts, if appointed after u'ndergoing a ielection process based upo.n fairness and equality if opportunity to att other eligible candidates' shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. d,ailv wasers, ad hoc or ntrac al (2I But ot aDoointed aoatnst reoular ADD ointees are sanctioned DOsts and thetr services are ava iled ith notional breaks. bv theSt ate co tinuo 'slv, Gove rnment or its instrum entalit s for a sufficient rs. such dailv wa qer, ad lono Deriod i.e. for 7O tees s all be enti hoc or con tractua ADDOI cale without anv mtn ,mum f the reoular Dav a llowances on t,he assumDtio n that work of a h allv oermissible scheme, reoularization. if anv. ma v have to be consid red seDaratelv in ter sof (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale )i., *or" than three years and two months of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daily wag'er, ad hoc or contractual emptoyee shall be entitled to urrluit for a period of three years and two months'"

13. The iudqment of thEA ex co rt repo rted in 2O1O(9) arnata ka and others v scc 247 ar 4to rea between : sta eof ndo ers n M .Kesa a u nder: 4 Constitution Bench of this Court held that a77ointmen ts made 4 2 1 n I8 SN. J \rp 23137 2021 without following the due process or the tL appointment did not confer any right on the courts cannot direct their absorption, regut. engagement nor make their service permanett Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Arttc Constitution should not ordinarily issue directiot': regularization, or permanent continuance unles:; had been done in a regular manner, in constitutional scheme; and that the courts mu ensuring that they do not interfere unduly wit_ arrangement of its affairs by the State or its tr. nor lend themselves to be instruments to facititet of the constitutional and statutory mandates. Tt. held that a temporary, contractual, casual ,) employee does not have a legal right to be r-, unless he had been appointed in terms of the re'r adherence of Atticles 14 and 16 of the ConstitLl however made one exception to the above 1tr same is extracted below : les relating to lppointees and -ization or re- . and the High e 226 of the for absorption, lhe recruitment terms of the t be careful in , the economic ;tru menta lities, : the bypassing s Court fu rther a daily-wage )de permanent vant rules or in ion. This Court sition and the "53. One asDect needs to be clarified There mav be cases where irreoular ao ointment:: ( not illesa I a DDOtn tments) as exDlained S.V, Nara NADDA Nan unda )a 17972 (7) SCR 72 7 scc 4091 and B.N. Naoaraian 17979 '.4) SCc soTl and referred to in oara 75 above, ol _luty ouatified Dersons in dulv sa ctioned vacant Do g's mioht have been made and the emolovees havcL continued to ten vears or m ore but witho t the work for intervention of orders of the courts o, of tr. u na ls. The question of reqularization of tlt t serv sof such em olovees mav have to be sidered merits in the lioht of the D rincioles tttled bv this Court in the cases abovereferred to a I d in the lisht of this iudom ent, In that co ntext, 'he Union of the State Govern ments India. i n stru menta I ities should take steps t( ularize as I a one-time measure. the services of s ,l rre ularl aooointed, who have worked for ten tears or more in dulv sanctioned oosts but not uqCer cover of orders of the courts or o and should further ensure t tioned posts that reourre to be filled uo. in :ases where temDorarv emDlovees or dailv waqe's are bein ct at reoular tecrt itmen ose vacan tribunat n t l9 SN. J !"P_212:r7_202 r now emDloved. The Drocess must be set in motion within six months from 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 fulfilled : (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 should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) fhe 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. (iii) Umadevi casts a dutv uDon the concerned Government or instrumental itv. to take steos to aDDo inted reqularize th emDlovees who had served for more than ten vears without the ben efit or Drotection of anv in rim orders of madevi, o directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its dectston rendered on 7O.4. services of those irreoularl rts or tribunals as

6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services. 20

7. At the end of six months from the date Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/c,t were still pending before Courts. Conseqt departments and instru menta lities did not comr time regularization process. On the othe, Government departments or instru menta lities one-time exercise excluding several er1 consideration either on the ground that their case in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such cir: employees who were entitled to be considered 't 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose Ll considered for regularization, merely becaus= exercise was completed without considering t because the six month period mentioned in pa r') has expired. The one-time exercise should cor wage/ad hoc/those employees who had put r continuous service as on 10.4.2006 withoLr protection of any interim orders of courts or r employer had held the one-time exercise in terrr Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadev concerned should consider their cases also, as a the one-time exercise. The one time exercise v,, only when all the employees who are entitled t( in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so consider( ( SN. J \!p..2.1217 2021 of decision in tua l employees ently, several tence the one- hand, some undertook the tloyees from ; were pending tmstances, the terms of Para ?ir right to be the one-time leir cases, or 53 of Umadevi ;ider all datly- 10 years of availing the bunals. If any ; of para 53 of :mployees who , the employer :ontinuation of lbe concluded be considered

8. The obiect behin the said direction i r Dara 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure t,\ tt those who have put in more than ten vears of contit'uous service without the Drotection of anv interim order; of courts or tribunals, before the date of deeislon in lmadevi was rendered, are considered for reoularizati2t in view of their lons service. Second is to ensLre that the d e pa rt m e n ts 1 i n stru m enta I iti es do not De 'petuate the Dractice of emolovrno Dersons on cli ilv-waoe/ad- tho 1 oeriodicallv h a ve served for more than ten years- therebv defeatina the_ :onstitutional ons relatino to re.:t uitment and e effect of the directttn is that all aDpointmeDt. rked for more than t,z t Years as on Dersons who ha 70.4.2006 (the date of decision in Umadeu,t I without the proteetien of anv interim order of an v courl rr tribunal, in vacant posts, possessino the reouisite oua tification are u larization The fact that entitled to be considered for casual for Iatt t ularize them on noriad< .and 2l SN, J \!p 23237 2O2l ken such exercise of the emolover has not und resularization within six months of the decision in llmadevi or that such exercise was undertaken onlv in reoard to a limited few, will not disentitle such emDlovees. the rioht to be considered for reoularization in terms of the above direct IONS In 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.

70. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with taw. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/ad -hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. It they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 7 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of lJmadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, theY may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. L4. I n the i ud o ent o the A Dex court in Nihal Sinoh t h v C+-1eofP re orted i 2n 1 2\ 14S 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose 22 SN, J \tp 23137 2021 wages were paid by Banks at whose d sposal their services were made available. It held that t re mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did n,:: render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State an d disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that th,: creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadr<: is a matter exclusively within the authority of the Stal r, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but <:l ose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It als;.! acce t the defence that and so there was iustifica tion for the St q te to utilise anr tioned posts refused to f w r n h services of laroe number of pecrlrle like the a ppellants for decades. It held that "sanctioned oosts do_ rot fall from heaven" and that the State has to create them bva conscious choice on th ba f r ion,a assessment of need. Referrinq to Umadevi , it held that t! e apoellants before them were not arbitrarilv chosen, their initia! aooointment was not an'irreqular'aoo ointnr :nt as it had been made in accord ance with the statutc 1v orocedure 2) SN, J \yP_23237 2021 prescribed under the Police Act, 1861, and the State cannot be heard to sav that thev are not entitled to be absorbed into the services of the State on permanent basis as, accordinq to it, their appointments werelrurely temDorarv and not aqainst bv the State. It was held that the iudoment in Umadevi sanctioned Dosts created n cannot become a licence for ex D oitation bv the State and either the Government of its instru me nta I ities and Puniab nor those oublic sect r Banks can continue such a oractice inconsistent with their obliqation to function in accordance with the Constitution.

15. The iudoment of the ADex Court reDorted in 2O15 SCC Online SC 1797 between B. Srinivasulu and others v Nellore Municioal Corooratio n Reo.bv its Commissioner, Nellore District, Andhra Prad esh and others, in oarticular 7 and 8 reads as un We find it difficult ta accept the reasonina adopted bv the (7) Hioh Court. The riqht of the a D ella nts to seek larization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994. The aopellant r to the have been in service of issuance of the said G.O. but even subseouent 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 firs res onden n 24 SN, J \r,p 2.]ll7 202 t without regularising the service of the appel,t ots and continued to extract work from the appe ants. B. In the circumstances, refusing the bt:, efit of the above mentioned 9.O on the ground that the apS.t llatnts approached th.e Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is n-. justif ied. ln the circum,stances, the appeal is attowed modifyt. T li" oro", unae, directing that the appeilants, sei,ui,'ei ie regutarised app.eal with effect from the date of . iheir comptet r i- iZ,, five year continuous service as was laid down Oy tn :'Ciirt in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. n,t.'Sigi -A"6rr. ,oOe 1A; SCC 4BO. -by

16. fn mar an Rai scc 265, s te fB ar re ,rted (2 o1s) 8 the Suoreme Cou rt held that The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregutar but not illegal, and to ensure appointmer ts, which are irregular but not illegal, and to en SUI', ) f emplovment of those Dersonswho had sel v secu ritv th s OV nm nta d vea rs". T s h etr ns um nta I In thatc ase, emDlovee wasworki n ( cr ston approv es earlier or nore th a n ten for 29 v ea rs. vtew 1:xoressed in M.L.K afl xtr te a

17. fn State ot) arkhan V am I Pra SE[ I reported in 20 4 7 c 22 imil rv ew was t rken bv the s r e ourt a a sfo ow 25 SN, J wp 23231 2011 "47.... In view of the cateoorical findinq of fact on the relevant contentious issue that the respondent emolovees n tn therefore the lesal principle laid down bv continuous I this Court in Umadevi case (State of Karnataka v Umadevi (2OOG) 4 SCC 7 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 73) at oara 53 souarelv applies to the present cases. The Division Bench of the Hiqh Court has rishtlv held that the resDondent emplovees are entitled for the relief, the same cannot be interfered with bv this Court."

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.27602 of 2O19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which h-ad been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 ot 2O23 dated 1O.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated

09.O8.2O24 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.

19. The iudqment of the Apex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V, State of Maharashtra and Others reported in AIR 2O2O Suoreme Court 3969 and in particular oara Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows: "100. The Hlgh Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of to exercise such mandamus, but are dutv-boun ow r has failed to exercise or has wronolv exercised V rnm ntora 26 SN, J vp _23231 2021 discretion conferr ed upon it by a statu ),orar ule, or a policv decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide. n irrelevant ( n ide rati o n.

101. In all such cases, the High Court mu:;r mandamus and give directions to compet an appropriate and lawful manner of conferred upon the Government or a public issue a writ of terforma nce in the discretion ruthority. "

20. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judq dated 1O.O6.2O13 oassedinW .A.Nos.782 of 2O1O and 854 m of 2012 whileup holdinq the ludq ment dat d 08.09.2 10 passed in W.P.N o. 24377 ol 2OO7 and C.C.l\ o.48 of 2oo8 observed as under:- "Further, it is manifest from the material or services of the similarly placed persons who apg Courts were regularized. The appellant-Corpora various office ord ers/circu la rs dated 20.12.11) 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2OO9 for r casual/contract employees, It is also to be seerr T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice I or workman, As can be seen from the factu;l cases on hand, engaging the respondents for continuous period of time on casual basis is nc labour practice attracting the provisions of Se: ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying of the Apex Court, rightly held that the responrl to regularizatlon as directed in the impugne I learned single Judge considered all the aspects detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our does not warrant interference in these appeals.'' record that the roached the law tion a lso issued ',9, r1.09.1992, lgularization of :hat Section 25- y ,any employer scenario of the uch a long and -hing but unfair ion 25-T of the rn the decisions :nts are entitled orders, as the )f the matter in :onsidered view 2L. The Divis ion Bench of this Court in j Es Judqment ',7 of 2017 dated 19. 09.20L7 D assed in W. P.No.27l , € 27 SN, J wp]3237 _202t reDorted in 20 18(2)ALD Daqe 282 at Dara 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 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.t994, 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/reg u la rlzation of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directrons 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/a bso rption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 10 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated own the width a nd th e 22.4.19 s4 do nrrt urhittle d u r in Man ula Bashini's case tra ector t r n l^r^,ar d n lrrr +ha ccrrad in Um .212 dated 22.4.1 h in Para 53 of its ud m n case (suDra). It is- therefore, not oermissible for the respondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. 4 the Detit:oners. who have admittedlv, satisfied the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the iudoment in Uma Devi's case (supra ). 18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2017, in OA No.1442 of 2074, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ etiti n llowed with the direction to the resDondents to considerr eo ularisation of the services of the oetitioners ao atnstt he existino vacancies of Work InsDectors and aDDoint them subiect to their satisfvinq the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the iudoment in Uma Devi's case (suo ra Thi s Drocess must be comDleted within two months from the date of receiDt of a copy of this order." ) SN. J rvp 2t23 7 202t

22. The Division Bench of this Court ir its Judq ment dated 21.04.202O oassed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2! 2Oin1of2 o 19 and w.P No.23 O57 of 2O19 reoo rted in 2t) 20 379 at Daras 45 48 and ara 5O observed 1; under:- ALD a e "45. There is no dispute that petitioners haVr been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in alrr )st (30) year-s of service by now. They have been given minim.j n time_scale from the year 2000. They have been continuousl, working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 til late. foll wed the decisi on in tl ma Devi's vees whohadw orked for more thi 6an su v n o,4.2 reoularize their services. e f I )ndent has not l rse (suora), as 1rd undertaken a ! of dailv waoe ! 10 g Tribunals as on I erification as to !J ant posts and he I osts, and if so,

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowr orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st re the cas es of petitioners for regularization ol time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrarr 16 and 21 of the Constitutir Article s74 1 ), ; the impugned s rondent rejecting iervices on one- , and violative of r r of India; the I one-time basis '.! the petitioners y 'aoes from the [:y shall not be 1 <ercise shall be ! e of receipt of

23. This Cou rt opines that tn he or resDond ents failed to d ischa rqe their dut\ es! nt case, the tn exa mrn rnq 29 SN. J wp 23237 .2021 the reouest of the Detitioner for req u la rization of Detitioner's servi ces, who is workinq as ful! time sweeDer and further to consider his reouest to treat the tem pora rv service of the Detitioner in the last qrade oost of full time swee ner as re ular ne for a lournosesb o ra nti n o la st o o qrade oav with oeriodical in rement revised from time to time from the date of aDDointment of th Detitioner, in acco rd a n ce to law.

24. T his C ourt o ines that oetitioner is entitled tor D conside r ation of Detitioner's case for orant of the relief as oraved for in the Dresent Writ Petition in view of the observations of the Aoex Court in various iudqments ( referred to and ex+racted hnva'l a n .l fha vt w .rf fha ivision Bench of this Court in h J rr and extracted above.

25. Takinq into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5. 30 SN. J !\,p 21217 2021 c) The observations of the Apex Court irr the various judgments (referred to and extracted above ) and again enlisted below: i)(2020) l scc (L&s) (ai) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNSC 144 (iv) 2024 Lawsuit(SC) 1209 (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 2O1o(9) sCC 247 (vii) (2O13) 14scC 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 Scc223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O SuPreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 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 :ourt dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1'3 and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment datec 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 ol 2OO7 and C.C.ll' r.48 of 20O8 (referred to and extracted above). e) The Division Bench order of this 3ourt dated Lg.Og.z}a7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 ot 2O17 (referred to and extracted above), )l SN, J \yD 23231_20)t f) The Division Bench order of thas Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 ot 2OL9 (referred to and extracted above). 9) 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 Dut-forth the claim of the Detitioner for reo ular zation of Detitioner's services, and also the claim of the oetitioner to treat the temDorarv services of the petitioner in the last qrade Dost of SweeDer as reqular one for all purooses bv qrantinq last qrade Dav with date of appointment of periodical increments revised from time to time from the the petitioner and all consequential benefits, duly enclosanq all the relevant documents in support of petitioner's case as put-forth in the present writ petation, within a period of one (O1) week from the date of receiDt of copy of the order and the respondents shall examine and consider the same in accordance to law, in conformitv with D f incioles of natural iustice bv providinq an oDportunitv of personal hearinq to 32 SN, J wp 21211 _2021 the D titioner, i n terms of orders Dass dbv ! ne Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case reported in 20 06(4', l SCC Paoe 1, the i doment oassed in W.P .No.24377 ot 2OO7 dated o8 .09.2010 reported in 2011 (1) ALD, Paqe 2 4anda rmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 10.,0 5.2 13 and c also as oer Division Bench Jud qment of this,_ Court dated t_

19.09.201 7 oassed in W. P.No.272L7 of 2OO t_ reDorted in 2018( 2)ALD Daoe 2A2 and also the Dir sion Bench .ludoment of this Cou rt dated 2l .o4.202e Dassed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 in W.P.No.2l t 157 of 20L9 repo ed in 2O2 O(4)ALD Daoe 379 which t ad attai ned within a oeriod of four [O4) weeksl 1om the date takinq into of this ord f a co fina li r consr eration the observations and the law lli the A ex Cou rt in the vario SI ud o ments ( ret rred to a down b articular, ara ! o.53 of the extracted above), and in iudq ent of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. lJma Devi and dulv comtl unicate the ther e _ shall be no dectsl ontot he Det tioner. Howeve r order as to costs. JJ SN, J \vP 232i7 _2021 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/.B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTR \ To, //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One fair copy to THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE S REPALLI NANDA (For Her Lordship's Kind Peryy r)

1. 11 L.R. Copies. 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ivlinistry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

3. The Secretary, Tetangana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad

4. The Principal Secretary, Panchayath raj and Rural Employment Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad- 5 The Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat, 6. The Commissioner of Panchayathraj and Rural Employment, Govt. of Hyderabad. Telangana, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

7. The Chref Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad.

8. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R District, TS. 9 One CC to SRl, CH GANESH Advocate IOPUC] 10.Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES l, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

11.Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] 12:Two CCs to GP FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 1 3. One CC to SRl. C KALYAN RAO, SC FOR ZPPS MPPS GPS [OPUC] 14. One CC to SRl. P. KISHORE RAO, SC [OPUC] 15. Two CD Copies BM BS CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:31 10712025 ORDER WP.No.23237 of 2021 1ll rA i0 B ?fl26 .) O ( * (o (vz c) >^ -d * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITH OUT COSTS 7> J-r: 6 >{