The High Court · 2025

Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, tearned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Rural Development, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and g, tearned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and ptanning, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 and Sri. Katta Pradeep Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TG Zpp Mpp GPPS, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5.

2. as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not treating the services of petitioner as regular one in last grade post for working from several long years on full time even not paying legitimate wages of Full Time Sweeper, as per appointment order, as unjust, unfair, totally arbitrary and violation of Article L4, L6, ZL,39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of our Constitution in denying legitimate living wages to petitioner by not implementing Section 13 and 15 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and provisions of 4 SN, J wp_27618_2022 Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and Govt. Orders from time to tirne, to pay living wages to petitioner and prays to direct the Respondents herein to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in last grade post from the date of initial appointment by applying the decision and principle laid lry the Honble Apex Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs State of U.P. (2019 (1) SCC 516) and Division Bench of this Honble Court in WP No. 33936 of 2011 and Batch Cases dateC 02-05-2018 (2020 (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) followed bv decis;ion of the Honble High Court of A.P. in W.A. No. 483 of 2021. dated 05-08 -2021 based on principle laid by the 1 Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. L254 of 2018 Apex Court, dated 23-O3-2OL8 to reckon contingent services of petitioner for computation of qualifying service to grant of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits by releasing consequential monetary benefits in the last grae post including periodical increments, as revised from time to time with 100 (PERCENT) compensation as per principle laid by Ape>r Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Avtar Chand in C.A.No. 34L6 - 3445 of 2010 and Batch Cases dated 19-02- 2OLg (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by applying the aforesaid prinr:iples and decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Divis;ion Benches under Article l4L of our Constitution by this Hon'ble Court in the case of petitioner and pass..'" 3 / / 5 SN, J wp_27618 2022 PERUSED THE RECORD:.

5. n \ 6 sN, j \tp]1618.022 6 No.4 7 L R v "36. There are some of the employees who have not been reju arized in spite of having rendered the services for 30- +-o'o. mo.e years whereas they have been superannuated ' As they have worked in the work-charged establishment' not against any particular project, their services ought to . 7 SN, J wp_27618 2022 have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus umadevi (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, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be 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 reoular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work-charqed establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension.,,

8. The Aoex court in the case of Dharwad District pwD Literate Daily waoe Emplovees Association vs. state of Karnataka reported in 199o(2) scc paoe 396 taid principte that the state should not keep a oerson in temoorarv or adhoc service for lonq oeriod and have to treat such oersons as reqular one.

9. Para No.53 of the of the iudgment of the Aoex court in the state of Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi, dated 1o.o4.2oo6 reported in (2oo6) 4 scc 1 is extracted hereunder:- 8 SN, J \vp 27618_2022 irrrlnrrrant fhr} aanlavt I lninn af Tndir in cases where temporarv emolovees or dailv waoers motion within six months from this date. .... 10 hereunder: *1:1. Despite being labelled as "part-time workersr" the appellants performed these eslsential tasks on a daily and continuous { t_& - 9 SN, J wp_276t8_2022 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.

13. 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 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 LLBT (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 entiUed 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 l0 e SN, J wp_27618_2022 of a',roiding payment of employee benefits, thereby incrr:asing their profits. This judgment underscores the printiple that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the wor<er, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits' It

26. While the judgntent in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional prirrciples, it is regrettable that its principles are oftern misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees' This iud,3ment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" -and aPPointments. "irregular" sidered nasa one- r reoula tttng--neasure. 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 depa rtments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi ) to argue that no vested right to (su pra regtula rization exists for temporary employees, explicit ovr:rlooking acl<nowledg ment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts judgment's decades.

27. opinion, In light of these considerations, in our it is imperative for government t: { SN, J wp_27618_2022 departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, 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 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 .t0.2018 are quashed; ii. The appellants shall be taken services regularised forthwith. However, the aopellants shall not be entitled pecuniarv benefits/back waqes for the period rruorrlrl retiral benefits." corrntcd Jor r nost- . t2 SN, J sp _21618-2022

11. m reDorted in 2025 INSC 144 in "SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v. v l-at "15. It is manifest that the Aopellant Workmen the Emolover's failure dacnila dir.aaliarr< tn dn furnish such records- rrlrrarca ca-rllouu< .ari ! n I ageqrcnt!_At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" emp,loyment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following parergra phs: "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an $ I g * E 4 3 : :' :: !i l I t3 SN, J wp 27618_2022 increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in govern menta I operations.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address 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: . Misuse of "Temoo rv" Labels: Emolovees tterlntrActrral-" even n their rolas mirror 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 quality or duration of their service. . Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find t4 SN. J !vp_276r8_2022 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 thelr 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 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."

15. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inallility to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it crdered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were lefl: in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. Wlrile 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 cor"nmensurate with the degree of statutory violation ev rdent on record. ,n l5 SN, J wp_27618 2022 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. Industriat Disputes Act, L947, and that thev were enqaged in followinq directions: 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, L947, 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. l6 SN. J wp 276t8 2022 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. R 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 actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. n n rcaaceirra ;aarrlrrirr+iaa +ha 6arrar +^

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." t I l:i t 1 i .-: t7 SN, J \vp_27618_2022 L2. The Apex court in a judqment reported in (2o17) 1 suoreme court cases 148 in state of punjab and others vs Jaojit sinoh and others at paras 54 and its sub-paras (1)(2)(3't, of the said iudgment observed as under: "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, white adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay- scale, merely for the reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were simirar. The futt bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held entiiled to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:- "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against. the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other etigible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regutar pay scale from the date of engagement. (2r But if daily wagers. ad hoc or contractual appointees are not appointed aoainst regular sanctioned posts and their services are availed continuously. with notional breaks. bv the State Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient long period i.e. for lO years, such daily wagers. ad hoc or contractual appointees shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pav scale without any allowances on the assumption that work of oerennial nature is available and having worked for such long period of time, an equitable right is created in such categorv of persons, Their claim for regularization, if anv. may have to be considered separately in terms of legally oermissible scheme. (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 l8 SN. J wp _27618 _2022 wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months."

13. m 2 b en: s te ofK arnataka and othersv ri and others in oarticular, Daras 4 to 9 reads as M.L.K u nder: v. Umadevi was re ndered 4.'rhe decision in State of Karnata on 10.4.2006 ( reoorted i 2006 ru) so'C 1). In that case a of this Court held that appointments made Cor without foltowing the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and cou rts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re- enqagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Corrt in exercise of jurisdiction under Afticle 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, reg\u larization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the colstitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic ar.'angement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, ncr 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 ernployee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in atlherence of Artictes 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : -A ,,tO7 enBl as exolai, needs to be clarified. ere mav be "53. One a cases where iteoular appointments (not illegal in S.V. NaravanADDA aDDOtn 17967 (7) SCR 7281, R.N. NaniundaDDa f7972 (71 c?f Ei27 and referred to in oara 75 above, of dulv qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant Dosts mioht have been made and the employees have continued to ;ha intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals, 'ation of the services of The ouestion of reoula ,nra?a h.rj trrilh.\rrj ,Jqaqtqiqrl B. N f7O7O r/a-,,< }an Jat .'t,. ,l 19 SN, J wp_27618_2022 such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled bv this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context. the tJnion of India the State Governments and their appointed. who have worked for ten vears or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up. in cases where temporary employees or daily waoers are being now employed, The process 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 70 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 Sfafe Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if 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 duty upon the concerned Government or instrumentality to take steps to regularize the services of those irregularly appointed employees who had served for more than ten years 20 SN, J wp_27618_2022 ( rendered on 7O.4.20O6). 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 shouid undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daity-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for ntore 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 fhe requisite quatification for the post and if so, regularize their services. 7. Al the end of six months from the date of decision in tJmadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were stitt pending before Courts. Consequently, several depa.tments and instrumentalities did not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the emplcyees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in lJmadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exer<:ise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily- wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of contiltuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any emplcyer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of lJmatlevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned shoutd consider their cases also, as a continuation of the c,ne-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when att the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of lJmadevi, are so considered. tritunats, Oefore tne aa { I 2l SN, J wp_27618_2022 rendered. are considered for regularization in view of their long service, Second is to ensure th,at the departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the oractice of employing persons on dailv-waoe ^d- hoc/casual for long periods and then periodically regularize them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years. thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and aopointment. The true effect of the direction is that all oersons who have worked for more than ten years as on 7O.4.2OOG (the date of decision in Umadevi) without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal in vacant posts. possessing the requisite qualification. are entitled to be considered for regularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in reoard to a limited few. will not disentitle such employees the right to be considered for regularization 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 Umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in antinuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years service do not 22 SN, J wp_27618_2022 possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at 'the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regulzrization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. L4. In the iudoment the Aoex urt in Nihal Sinoh 65, the Srupreme Court considered the case of absorption of Specia! Potice Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paad by Banks at whose disposal their services rrvere made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appetlants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusavely 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 relationslrip, its action is arbitrary. It also refused to a 23 SN, J wp 27618_2022 conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment bv the State. It was held that the judgment in Umadevi accordance with the Constitution.

15. \ 24 SN, J wp_27618_2022 paras 7 atnd 8 reads as under: (7) We find it difficult to accept the reasoning adopted by the Hiqh Court. The riaht of the appellants to seek regularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994. The apoellant have been in service of the first respondent not onlv prior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subsequent 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 withc,ut regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants.

8. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the 'iribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appe,zl by directing that the appellants' services be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their five year conti,.tuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Colle:tor/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC.4BO,

16. In A,markant Rai v State of Bihar reoorted (2O15) 8 SCC 265, the Suoreme Court held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regulariz:rtion of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure securitv of Government and their instrumentalities for more than ten j 25 SN, J wp_276t8_20?2

18. The Judgment ot this court dated 06.:.2.2022 passed in w.p.No.27602 0f 201g which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upherd by the Division Bench of this court in w.A.No.937 0f 2023 dated 10.10.2023 and arso confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLp No.3 Zg4Z ot 2024.

19. 26 SN. J 618_2022 \tp -27 :t "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the sue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of powr:r to is -it mandamus, n R

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

20. 4 "Fu rther, it is manifest from the material on record that the ser,/ices of the slmilarly placed persons who approached the law Courts were regularized. The a ppellant-Corporation also issued various office orders/circu la rs dated 20.12.1989, 11'09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for regularization of casual/contract employees, It 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 I !: 27 SN, J wp_27618 2022 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.,, ivision ch of

21. The is Court in its Jud ment dated 19.o9.2o17 oassed in w.p.No.27217.of 2o17 reported in 2o18(2)ALD paoe 292 at oara 16 and oara 1g observed as under:- '16. It is trite that the law declared by the supreme court is binding throughout the country under Article t4L of the constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in lJma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of L9g4 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 appointmLnts- 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 directioni 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 22.4.1994, 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 regularization/absorption exist. Therefore. Act 2 of 1994 1OO and G.O. Ms. No.212. dated 22.4.1994, do not whittle down the width and the iudgment in Manjula Bashini s case (supra), does not lower the trajectorv of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Para 53 of its judgment in Uma Deyf,s case (supra). It is, therefore. not permissible for the respondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, to denv reoularization to the oetitioners. who have, admittedly, satisfied the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Deyi's case (supra). i. 28 SN, J wp_2'1618_2022

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.20L7, in OA No.1442 of 20t4, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ oetition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to consider regularisation of the services of the oetitioners aoainst the existino vacancies of Work Insroectors and appoint them subject to their satisfying the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the iudgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). This process must be comoleted Wltnin two montns from this; order.'1

22. Thr: Division Bench of this Court in its Judoment dated 2:1.O4.2O2O oassed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 reported in 2O2O(4)ALD oaoe 379 at naras 45, 48 and oara 5O observed as under:- "4Ii. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the: year 2000. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date.

48. It is not known whv he 1st resoondent has not fellowed the decisio explained in M.L. Kesari's case (supra) and undertaken a one-time exercise of preoarino the list of daily wage ernployees who had wo without the intervention of the Courts and Tribunals as on ftl.4.ZOOS and subjec whether thev are workino against vacant oosts and pgssess requisite q regularize their services.

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting tl're cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one- tine basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles L4, 16 and 2L of the Constitution of India; the Betitioners' services from the date each of the petitioners gomplete 1O years of service on daily waoes from the { 29 SN, J wp_27618_2022 initial dates of their appointment. But, they shall not be entitled to any monetary relief. The said exercise shall be done within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order."

23. accordance to law.

24. and extracted above. a 30 SN, J wp_27618 2022

25. Takinq into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5. c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted tlelow: i)(:lo2o) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) sCC Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2(J24 LawSuit(SC) 1.2(J9 (v) (2fJ17) 1 scc 148 (vi) 201o(e) scc 247 (vii ) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC L79t (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2oL4) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32A47 ot 2O24 (xii ) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiiii) (2006) 4 SCc 1 (xirr) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in w.A.Nos.7e2 of 2o1o and g54 of zoLz whrile uploading the Judgment dated og.o9.2o1o I / 3l SN, J wp_276t8J022 passed in w.p.No.24l7t of 2oot and c.c.No.4g of 2oo8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this court dated 19.09.2017 passed in w.p.No. z72t7 of 2ot7 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this court dated 2l.o4.2o2o passed in r.A.Nos.l of zo2o in 1 of 2o19 and w.P.No.23os7 of 201.9 (referred to and extracted above). g) rn the light of discussion and conctusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order. 32 \ i SN, J wp _2'1618 2022 documents in suoport of petitioner's case as out-forth in the oresr:nt writ oetition, within a period of one (O1) week from the date of receiot of coov of the order and the respondents shall examine and consider the same in accordance to law, in conformity with principles of natural iustice bv orovidinq an oooortunitv of oersonal hearinq to the Detationer, in terms of order oassed bv the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case reported in 2OO6(4) SCC Paqe 1, the iudqment passed ln l/tLP.Nq.24377 f 2007 dated O8.O9.201O reported in 2011 (1) ALD, Pase 234 and as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 10.O6.2013, and also as oer Division Bench J udqment of this Court dated

19.09.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.27217 ot 2OO7 reported in 20tA(2 )ALD paqe 242 and also the Division Bench Judoment of this Court dated 21.O4.2O2O oassed in .1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 in W.P.N o.23O57 of 2O19 reoorted in 2O2O(4)ALD oaqe 379 which had attained finalitv. within a oeriod of four (O4) weeks from the date of receiot of a coov of this order, du v takino into conside ration the observations and the law laid down bv the Aoex Court in the various iudoments (referred to and I a Jf SN, J wp-27618-2022 extractect abovel, anct in oarticular.. para No.53 of the order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if dI'lY, pending in this writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/.S. g'th^$+R*BTSi[tR / ,/TRUE COPY" SECTION OFFICER One Fair CoPY to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTICE (For Her LadYshiPs Kind Perusal) PALLI NANDA To

2. The Under secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and company 1. 11 LR CoPies' '" +ffi S,}jUi:H*"n" nouo"ates Association Library' High court " n +XltJ}P"t*:y'g:re*-, p anchavath-raj Department' relans ana secreta riat' ; itla'r$urria$".iqqrli E3r: :::j:" il:: : ffi::; ", 6 The Comm,ssioner of PanchaYat 7 Tfre g,iet Executive orricer,'"-'-i[{A?,:3l{'i.Xf]:35,"^l3ltl[tbiooip"t I ffi ild;dat.Parisl'rad DeveloPm' ;, "Iu?"r--'t,.IjiHlillffi 11.Two CCs to ( ,',3?l3B3i3'3 13.Two CD CoPtes Et':l}ll;Tl#l:::",;*Jffi Dg.;Ii'iji^.SlttRtx=-'.1ffi?:ffij8'*uu?ol DEv, Hish court ror the Hvderabad' ' PSK. BS W i' HIGH COI.NRT DATED:2410712025 ORDER WP.No.27618 of 2022 ., CC TODAY .ip;il:

9.- q-) 0 2 i{r- z02B ,!. ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ( T 'll, n )