Smt. G.Balamma v. 1. The State of Telangana

Counselfor the Respondent No.5: SRI G. NARENDER REDDY, . SC FOR ZPPS AND MPP AND GPPS The Court made the following: ORDER 3 SN. J wp_237t5 2021 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Rural Development, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.l, 3 and 4t tearned Government Pleader for Finance and pranning, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 and sri G. Narender Reddy, learned standing counsel for Zpps AND Mpp AND GPPS, appearing on behalf of respondent No.5.

2. as under: "....to issue an order or direction rnore particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the 'rSaction of the respondents in not regularizing the temporary appointment provided to the petitioner on compassionate grounds in the year 1984 to till date by paying starving wages of Rs.4000/- per month from 37 long years ignoring legitimate wages payable to the petitioner as per Section 13 and 15 of Minimum Wages act, Lg4B and Section 4 of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 r/w Article L4, L6, 2t, 39 (d), 43 & 300 (A) of Constitution of India, as highly illegal, unjust, \ \ 4 SN' J wp]3715 2021 unfair and violation of the provisions of the said Acts and Constitution of India prays to direct the respondents herein to treat the petitioner as a regular one in the last grade post by applying the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.6798of2o1:gdated02.09.2019inthecaseofPrem Singh Vs, State of U.P. (2019 (1) SCC 516) and with further direction to release all the consequential monetary benefits of the last grade post w.e.f . L2.04.1991 to till date from time to time with 100o/o compensation on arrears of pay as per the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C'a' No' 3416 _3445.cf2010dated19.02.2019inthecaseofUnionof India Vs. Avatar chand (2019 e ALD SC 32) by', awarding heavycclstandpasssuchorderororder,astheCourtmay deem fit and property in the interest of justice"' , 5 SN, J wP 23715_2021

4. I \ 6 SN, J wp-?3715 2021 receipt of the said representation, the resoondents would reasonable oeriod. 6 does not disoute the said submission made bv the learned No.5.

7. others, at para 36 held as under: "36. There are some of the employees 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 establishment, not against any 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 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 I I 7 SN, J w_23715 202t 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 ,, persons as reqular one. hereunder:- \ I 8 SN, J wp_23715_2021

10. hereunderi " 12. Despite being labelled 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. 9 SN. J wp-237 t5_2021

13. necessitates The recurring nature of these duties classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial enga gements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcin g of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termina tion demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourci fl9, which effectively replaced one set of workers 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 le7 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1 996)l serves as a pertin ent example from the private sector, illustratin g the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case Microsoft classified certain workers as inde pendent thereby denying them employee contractors, benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that la rge Corporations have increasin gly adopted the practi ce of hiring tem porary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasiig their profits. This judgment un derscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label a ssigned to the worker, should determine em ployment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It \\ \ 10 SN, J wp 23115_2021

26. While the judg ment in Uma Devi (suPra) sought to curtail the P ractice of backdoor entries and ensure aPPointmen ts adhered to constitutional pri nciples, it is regretta ble that its PrinciPles are often misinterPreted or misaPPlied to rlenY itimate claims of long serving employees. This ment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" appointments. "irregular" time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions indiscriminatelY reject the rely on its dicta to claims of emPloyees, even in cases where their ointments are not illegal, but merelY lack adh erence to Procedural forma lities. Government depa rtments often cite the judg ment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temPorarY emPloYees, explicit overlooking acknowledgm ent of cases where regularization is appropriate. judgment's decades. In light of these considerations, in our 27, opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers o.n a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning,notonlycontravenesinternational [abour sta-ndards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee motJle. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, 1l SN. J wp_2i7t5_2021 promote job. s-ecurity, and uphold the principles of justic. ;;,a irirnes"-il; they are meant to_.embody. Thils approach aligns with international "t"nal.O, and sets a positive precedent roi itre: prirate sector to follow, thereb-y "ontriU.rling to the overa, betterment of t;b;;;;;;l;"" in the country. 28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the aopeals are aflow"O. The impugned orders passed by the ffign Corrt and the Tribunal are set aside ung II" orilinal application is attowed to the following extent: i. Ilq termination orders dated

27.L0.2018 are quasneO; ii.

11. "15. ,, \ \ ! t2 SN, J wp_23715_2021 aqreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. union of rndia in the following paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, dS exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversety affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious emp.loyment 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. -----.-/*' ,:/ t3 SN, J wp_237t5 2021

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularry 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 tong-term obligations owed to employees. These praCtices maniiest in several ways: ,f 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, regardiess of the quality or duration of their service. . Lack of career Qrogression: Temporary employees often find themsetves excluded fiom opportrihities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regula, counterparts, despite their contributions oeing equally significant. ' Using outsourcing as a Shierd: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing rores performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This prlctice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates \ l4 SN, J wp 23715_2021 a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. " Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularizationr, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record. L7. In light of these considei'ations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workrnen 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 Ll.P. Industrial Disputes Act, t947, and that they were enqaoed in l5 SN. J wp_23715_2021 followino 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, 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. III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entiUed to 50o/o of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their \ t l6 SN, J wpJ3Tts]021 actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. perennial municioal duties akin to oermanent posts. In assessinq reoularization, the Emoloyer shall not impose educational or or are required, the Resoondent Emolover shall

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. (1)(2)(3), of the said iudqment observed as under: "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, t,hat temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay- for the reasont that the activities carried on by scale, m€r€lf daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The full bench /'-' t7 SN, J wp_237t5 2021 however, made two exceptions. Temporary emproyees, who fe, in either of the two exceptions, were herd entitteo to wages at the minimum of the pay_sr"l. a**, by regular emptoyees. The exceptions recorded by the fuil bench'or ini-uu'i'court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:_ "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regurar sanctioned posi,- i-iiiointed after undergoing a serection process'based ipii-rui*ess and equatitv of .opp.ortunity to att candidates, -otiir- "ti6i;i"' shail be entitred to minimum of tne rejuE'i i, scare from the date of engagement. (3) In the event, a craim is rnade for minimum pay scare after more than three yeaii ana two months of completion of 70 years oi continuous working, a daity wager, ad hoc or contra.ctuar emproyee shart be entitted to arrears for a period of three yeiis and two ,orthr-.),

13. under:

4. of this Court held that appointments made \ \. l8 SN, J wp_23715 2021 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 Articte 226 of the constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the sfate or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This court furthir held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be m,ade 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 pctsition and the same i.s extracted below : instrumentalities should take steps to regularize as appointed. who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should t9 SN, J wp237t5 2021 '5. ft is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are futfilted : (i) rhe 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 tribunar" In other words, the sfafe Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service votuntariiy 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 ittegat. 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. (rendered on 7O.4.20O6). 6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be tihderstood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in lJmadevi, each department or each instrumentatity should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of a'tt casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts an-d tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess fhe requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services. .t t 20 SN, J wp_23715-2021

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequentl.y, several departments and instrumentalities did not comrnence 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 employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should con,sider all daily- wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terrns of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled tct be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered.

8. The obiect behind the said direction in para 53 of without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered. are considered for regularization in view of their long seruice, Second is to ensure that the departmintstinstrumentalities do not perpetuate the oractice of emploving persons on daily-waae/ad- more than ten years. therebv defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment, The true effect of the direction is that all pefsgns who have worked for more than ten years as on 7O.4,2O06 (the date of decision in llmadevi) without the 2t SN, J w_23715_2021 measure,

9.-These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in lJmadevi. The Appettant (Zila panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision in umadevi or thereafter. -considered

10. The Division Bench of the High court has directed that the cases of respondents shoutd be in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of umadevi, is that the Zira panchayat, eaiag shourd now undertake an exercise within six montht, u g"iural one- time regularization exercise, to find out whethter tfrere are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zita panchayat and'if so whether such employees (includiig the respondeits) fulfiil tle requ.irgments mentioned in para 53 of umadevi. If they futfitt 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 orlne pendency of {hese cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless fo say that if the respondents do not futfitt the requiremeints of Para 53 of umadevi, their services need not be iegutarised. If the employees who have compteted' ten years service do not possess'fhe educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may bd considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This'appeat is disposed of accordingly.

14. 65, the supreme court considered the case of absorption of special Police officers appointed by the state, whose \ \ 22 SN, J w_237ls_2021 wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants '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 exclusively within the authority of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also refused to and so there was iustification for the State to utilise decades. It'held that "sanctioned oosts do not fall from / t 23 SN, J wp_237t5_2021 bv the State. (7) G.O. till today. The body is obtiged by mentioned G.O. the respondent Municipality being statutory the G.O. 21 2(supra). Inspite of the above respondents kept quite for almost 20 years a \ \ 24 SN, J wp_23715_2021 without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extr,act work from the appellants. B. trn the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O, on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circum.stances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' services be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 4BO,

16. In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar reported (2O15) 8 SCC 265, the Suoreme Court held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure securitv of M,L.Kesari extracted above. 25 SN. J wP_23715_2021 interfered with by this Court.,,

18. The Judgment of this court dated o6.L2.2o22 passed in w.P.No.2t6o2 of 2019 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, yadadri, Natgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.937 ot 2OZ3 dated 10.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated 09.08.2024 in SLP No.328,47 of 2O24.

19. "100. The High 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 mandamus, \: 26 SN, J wp_23715_2021 discretion conferred upon it bv a statute, or a rule, or a policv decision of the Government or has exercised consideration.

101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a writ of mandamus 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 1O.O6.2O13 oassed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O and 854 of 2012 while upholding the Judgment dated O8.09.2010 oassed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OOB 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 also issued various office orders/circulars dated 20.L2.1989, 11.09.t992, 06.10.:2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for regularization of casualT'contract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25- T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for such a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of Section 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respondents are entitled to regularization as directed in the impugned orders, as the learned single Judge considered all the aspects of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals." 2L. I .l ,/, 27 SN, J wp_23715_2021 observed as under:- "16. It is trite that the law declare d by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article t4L of the Constitution of India. It is n oteworthy that by the time the judgment in Llma Devi,s case (supra), was rendered provisions of Act 2 of 1 994 and G.O. Ms. No.212 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 giv ing a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointm ents to public posts, ordered for one-time a bsorption/regula rization of those who were working fora period of not less than 10 years. It has given direction s in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of va rious State enactments such as Act 2 of L994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, d ated 22.4.L994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in tJma Devi 3 case (supra). But still , it has not made any exce ption in fa vour of the States where State enactments banning regularization/a bsorption exist consciously

18. in OA For the aforementioned reasons, ord No.1442 of 20L4, on the file ot the er, dated 27.6.2017, Tribunal is set aside this ord \ \ 28 SN, J w]37ls.2021

22. e Divisi NB Cou n d m n dated 21. O4.2O2O oassed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W.P.N aa ?OE7 nf 2Ol9 rarr^Fla.l irr ,al nfr\ ALD 379 at oaras 45,48 and oara 5O obse d 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. n

48. It is ot known whv the 1st resd(l dent has not followed the decision in Uma Devi's case (suora), as exola ined in M.L. Kesari's case (suDra) and un ertaken a one-time exercise of oreoarino the list of daily waoe emolovees who had worked for more than ten (1O) vears without the intervention of the Courts and Tribunats as on 1().4.2r)()6 and subiect them a orocess verifi taon as to whether thev are workino aoainst va nt Dosts and possess requisite oualifications for the oosts. and if so. regula rize their serviCes.

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, tG and 2l of the Constitution of India; the respondents are directed to reoularize onbne-time basis petitaoners' services from the date each of the petitioners rc af carrriaa an elrilr,r aat ttt tt ala arac frrtrl'i +h ilri+i.l rcht ll rr^+ la6 arilillad raliaf h^ lha done within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of coov of the order." ,l-+ac ^ f tlra IT trrrr.ri h+.rra6+ ll.rl Tha G-i'l av ttr.trrai.Fv r,r -6 iA l

23. This Court ooines that in the oresent case, the s r e their x IN -' a' 29 SN, J wP 237t5 202t accordance to law.

24. and extractdd above. 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 behatf of the respondent No. 5 \ \ 30 SN, J w]371s 2021 c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: i)(202o) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) scc Pase 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 12o9 (v) (2oL7) 1 scc 148 (vi) 201o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scC 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC t797 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O SuPreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2O18(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.78.2 of 2O1O and 854 of 2Ot2 while uploading the Judgment dated 08.09.2010 passed in w.P.N o.24377 ol 2OO7 and C.c.No.48 of 2008 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this court dated 19.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.272L7 ol 2OL7 (referred to and extracted above), 3l SN. J wp 23715_2021 f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23057 of 2O19 (referred to and extracted above). g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order. \ \ i \ 32 SN, J wp_23715 2021

19.O9.2O17 oassed in W.P.No.27217 of 2OO7 reoorted in 2O18(2)ALD paqe 282 and also the Division Bench I.A.Nos.1 of 2O20 in 1 of 2019 in W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 finalitv, within a oeriod of four (O4) weeks from the date consideration the observations and the law laid down bv extracted above), and in particular, oara No.53 of the order as to costs. / I i t JJ Miscellaneous petitions, if ooy, Petition, shall stand closed. ,l , SN, J wp_23715_2021 pending in this Writ tf, SD/.B. REKHA RANI REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII One fair copy to THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTTCE SU (For Her Lordship,s Kind perusat) OFFICER NANDA To, 1 I State of T Department, I Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

2. The Principal Secretary, Finance and plannino uar i;ffi H{?"r;;g;;;5;ili",i.,iTr:'3?L'3%pfss[!:#,??IT[T:I:"t 3. The District Collector, (panchayats) and Chairman of Setection Committee, 4' TheDistrict coltector and chairman - District Selection committee, Nalgonda 5. 11 L.R. Copies. , . I?E,rllfl,iltf8,flary, Union of tndia, r,inistry of Law, Justice and company -''- 7' Ilfro,,in"rl'fitffirJr"Jrnsana Advocates Association Library, Hish court State of Telangana. [OUi]

8. The CEO, Zpp, Nalgonda. 9. One CC to Sri CH. Ganesh, Advocate [OpUCJ 10'Two CCs to c! for i3.lgl,rvrt Raj Rurar Deveropment, High court for the 11.Two cc to The.Gp for Finance and pranning, High court for the state of 12. one cc to Sri G. Narender Reddy, sc for zpps and tMpp and GppStopucl 13.Two CD Copies Telangana, at Hyderaoaolourl" rrrrrrv' ' rrvrr \ o, TJ BS HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED i2010812025 ORDER WP.No.23715 of 2021 r) 1g$tt t[?l i * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS