c' Mohan s/o chandraiah aged about s9 years. working as v. Planning Departme;t

Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case servicei haue Oeen rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the serv-ices be of such. employees. In the facts of the case, 539ytanzea, those employees who have worked for ten years or more shou,ld have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that tneir 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 regu larly before attaining the age of su perannuation. They sha ll be entitled to receive the pensio n as if they have retired from the requl r esta blishm ent andth servl ces re ndere bvt hem riqht from theda thev entered th wor r os d h c r r Th A c rt in the ase fDh L Dai w e K rn at are orte in1 90 2 sc th tth Sta sh uld n tk a adD stri onv s te PWD o e 6 lai tem or f hoc servi r h ular ne.

9. Pa ra No.5 3oft he of the i dqment of the ADex Court I the tat fK na v Um evt 1 o4.2 o6 or din 2 4 CCl is hereund er: - 8 SN.J + ) ( 1 n 7 R Nan scR 128 ified. There ears or moreb ut withou tt 5 3 o ea s n ect needs to be mav he ( not illeqal cases where irreqular aoooi ntments aDoorn tments) as exolain ed in s_v- Narava na DDa t97 1 a 1 scc 409 I and B.N. Naoa raian [ 19 79 4 scc 5071 and referred to in oara 1 5 above. of dul oualified oersons r n dulv sa nctione d vacant oosts mioht have been made and the emol ovees have continued to work for ten rnte rven to n of orders of the courts or of tribu na ls. The ouestion of req u la rization of the services of such emol o ees mav have to be considered on merits in settled l'rw th cl^ ou rt tn tha ca ses abovereferred to and in the lioh of this In that context, the Union of India, the iudqment. State Governments and their instrum enta Iities sho U d ta ke ste sto larize as a one-time r meas ure the services of uch irreoularlv a pointed, re in dul for ten ear sa n cti oned Dosts but notu nder cover f ord rs of the cou rts or of tribunals and should further en sure that reo ular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned Dosts t at reouire to be filled uo. in cases where tem porarv emplov ees or dailv waqers are bein q now emolov ed. The Drocess must be set in motion within six months from this date. .... ho have work ht of the fln r o n D

10. The i ud o ment of thEA Dex Court dated 20.12.2024. re oorted in 2()24 LawSuit(S C) 1209 an Jaooo Anita and others v. Uni on of India and others. and the releva nt r h Nos,12 13 24 26 27 d28aree t hereunder: "12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from r.da. ":ffi ---_'-'=__ ,g 9 SN,J r m ts la ese w en t necessitates 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 typ'ically 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 clai mbv the resoond ents that a the natu re of the work oerformed bv the AD ella nts was e rennial and funda menta Ito fun IOntn of he ces. The recurring nature of these d u ties the ir 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 l0 a. s\.i r role i rncreasing th eir profits. This judgment underscores the principl e that the nature of the work performed , rather than the labe assig ncd to the worker should determine employ ment status and the co rresponding rights and benefi ts. It hi hti ht tif tn s ch mls class if ications a nd ens nnq t at w rke rs receivefa tr treat ment 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ens ure a ppointments adhered to conslitution a I principles, it rs regrettable that its princi ples are often misinterpreted or misapplied t o deny legitimate cla ims of long serving em ployees. This judg ment a i med to d isting u ish between "illegal" appointments I e I rre ed n " irreg ular" orn m nts re n lar a s c on c te h a r r T However, the laudable intent of the judgment is bei ng subverted when institutions rely on its d icta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees/ even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merel y lack adherence to proc edu ra I formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to a rgue that no vested ri ght to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking judgment' ex p licit acknowledgment of ca ses wh ere reg u larization is appropriate. S decades. o r

27. In lighr opinion, it departments to of these considerations, in our imperative for government lead by example in providing fair .,1 SN,J -peiiods, and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended 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 dmployee 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 seti a posative 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 Trib-unal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination 27 . LO.2OlB are quashed; orders dated lt. T e aD ella tss a ll be ta ken a e o o ev r f lar d h o t benefits /backwaqes rth e oeri od th vhave not worked for butwould be enti led toco tinui of servi ces f rth er! m rth err wo uld cou nted st- re iral

11. o J e o o2 2 IN 144 n" IP A o N ERv 2 SN-J NA GAR NIGAM, GHAZIA BAD", iN OA cular, the r elevant Dar A rs s etimes Em o nnrn more th nad r's f und er Even if ertai nmu ter roll wer not a Nos.1 5to19 are extracted hereu nder: *15. It i mant est h tth an Workm n continuou slv ren dered their se rvtces over sev ral a de. ro uced i n full fur ish uch rec rds- n adverse so-allow s inferen ce well-es ta blished labour iuris pru dence , Ind ian labo ur law stron o lv di sfavo rs Eer etu tdailv-wa qeorc tract ual enqaqem ents in u mstances where the work is oer mane nt in re. on ornq muntct al requ rrements vea r after vear cannot be dis issed summarilv asd i soen sa ble, la rl con r ctor aoreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indetinite ..temporary,, employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in laggo v. Union of fndia in the Following parag raphs: f ers who in th abs ra ll "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts/ as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employmenI arrangements, often characterized by lack oF benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining l3 SN,J 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 governmental 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 2OZ4 SCC Online SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: . Misuse of "TemD orarv" Labels: Emo vees n a i nteo ra I to the fu nction i no of an institution h eir roles m i rror co ntractu al secu ritv. and benefits that reoular e m ide tical 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 themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular n when t de nv s work labelled temoora f v titled cu rr f r I I 14 SN,.I ilil1;7:i#?,.uli"'tu their contriburions beins . Using Ou tsourcin q inc.easiisry ie;;;iil: as a shierd: Institutions I Tii r[ i ffi [ I#i,,"j"]fl :'r'::ir "?:ir'# :;,:i o.rv p"ip"Lui;r";;;r:l:1, another' rhis pr-actice not "iiJJ i: i,,?,,.:: i#", 3 t1?, Sil. i:, :# u o u i o u iuiu" regu ta r employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and B€nefits: Tpm. emptoyees are often o."nieJ" r,Iri,..,.,.J",u,"Tff#il such as pension, providenr ;rr;;;;;lJ;.in#un.u, 5li. o!',io r,|i,' ]3:*',],:i wn e n tne,.*",un,,.J "',ou n, securitv subjects them and their r.riilt ,; ;"""t1:] :[h;il]i,F:,:. :ff .H::i:=' j; "ii#i.ii,".l the Employer,s . Consequentiy, daily wages with some ay. Regrettably, this only Appellant Workmen were et still uncertain sta tus. the importance of thetr gula rization, it failed to r meaningful back wages of statutory violation

16. The High Court did acknowledge inability to justify these abrupt terminations it ordered re_engagement on measure of parity in minimum p perpetuated precariousness: the ieft in a marginally improved y While the High Court recognized work and hinted at eventual re afford them continuity of service o commensurate with the degree evtdent on record. L7. In light of thesr discontinuarion or the ffl:"J:til;_j:: TH]":; violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without !ElE*&.i* - . I I I l t5 SN,J adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.p. industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev were engaoed in essentia l, oe ren nial du ties. th ese workers canno be ated O DETDetual u ncerta intv. While con cerns budo tan dco MDliance with of municiDal recruitmen t rules erit co nsidera tion. su ch con cerns d neoateeo u ita ble o en tlemen heE !i a can n flo tsofw orkme n who h ve served con lnuo u slv in defacto re ular ro les for an exte nded oe riod. rum t el a I ndeed. t t 1 u d Th to h extent th v con ne the ADDeI lant Workme to fu ure -w o a he Hi h r f me a n inof I back waoes, as herebv t asid ewith the 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 duti es they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Th ir enti Derl dofa sence (from he da instatem ent) shall be until actual re i nation 1i I I I 16 SN.,I counted for contanuitv of service and all con seo u entia I benefits. such as seniority and elioibilitv for or motions, if anv. III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Worknren shall be entitled to 5070 of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. IV. The Respondent Emolover is directed to initiate a and transparent rocess for reo u la rizin o the Aooellant Workme n within six months from the date of reinsta ment, dulv co n siderin o the fact that thev hav pe rfo rm ed oerennial municioal duties akin to Dermanent Dosts. In assessinq reoularization, the hall not imoose educational or Emolover criteria retroactivelv if such oroced u ra I reouirements were to the ever aoolied Aooellant Workmen or to similarlv situated reo ular emolovees in the oast. To the extent that sanctio ned vacancies for such d uties exist or are reoui red, the Resoondent E olover shall exoedite all n ecessary administrati ve Drocesses to ensure hese lonqtime emolov es are not ind efi n itelv retained on dailv waoes contra rv to statutorv and equitable norms.

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." L2. The A Dex Court in a iudo ent reDorted in (20L7) L Suo reme Cou rt Cases 148. i State of Puniab and others l7 n h n r ras 4 SN,J u 2 h d m n serv d d "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, white adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitted to the minimum of the regutar pay_ scale, merely for the reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. ine fult bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary employ:ees, who fe ,::,:!"_f of the-two exceptions, were heti entittea rc wages at Lne mtntmum ol the pay_scale drawn by regutar employeel. The exceptions recorded by the fu 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 upo'n' fairness and egullily of opportunity to all other etigible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the reguiar pay scale from the date of engagement t e d t a t, I d n b c I s r t.e. for 70 vears. such dailv iti, s t oers. ad n lonct Den ni m I n r c t n 'h c,feated ,a I a e f r SU h il a n f d h such catedorv of a m , r, I, m rsons. Their claim for e (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two m'onths of completion of 70 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee sha be;nuiled to arrears for a period of three years and two months.,, I8 SN,J

13. The iudoment of the ADex Court reDorted in 2010(9) SCC 247 between: State of Karnataka and others v M.L.Kesari and others, in particular, Paras4to9reads as

4. The decision in State o rnat,aka v. Umade vt was rendered re orted in 2006 4) SCC 1 on 10.4.2 ). In that case. a 0p6 e onstitutiel.Beneh of this Court held that appointments made without followtng 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 sen/ice permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution shctuld not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manneL in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the cou rts must be careful in ensuring that they do not inter-fere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the state or its instru menta lities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : 6 "53, One asDect needs to be clarified. lh ere mav be cases where irreaular aDDointments (not illeqal a DDoint ents) as exDlained in S.V. Na vanaDDa 7 SCC 4091 and B.N. Naqaraian 17979 G) Scc 5071 and referred to in Dara 75 abo ve, of dulv sualified e ons , been made nd the emplovees have continued to tlw <art?li6 n d vacan 7 scR , ttt itr h tha an un 72 t a2 Fc nt al,ore h,,; tttitlr out intervention of orders of the courB or of tribunals. The ouestio of reqularization of the services of such emDlovees mav have to be considered on merits in the lioht of the principles settled bv this nd in the lisht Court in the cases above rte fl t9 SN.J of this iudoment. In th t context, the Union of India. the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steDs to reqularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irreoularlv r +a6 trarr s fhzr- an<rrr:a in lalv sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should rparrritftaarat< arp fttrl-har undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that reouire to be filled up, in cases where temDorarv emDlovees or daitv waoers are beino now emDloved. The p rocess must be set in motion within six months from this date. .... raatrlar '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) 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. sts a u s , Government or instrumentalitv, to take steps to reoularize the services of those irreqularlv aDDointed m without the benefit oF Drotection of anv interim orders of courts or tribunals. as a one-time measure. Umadevi. directed that such one-time measure must be set in m the date of iE decision motion within six months (rendered on 7O.4.2006). had se I t iI 20 SN,]

6. The ternt 'one_time measure, has to be understood in its proper perspective. This ,woutd normally i"ui-in"t after the decis io n i n u madevi. "rrn aepu ii"i ;;' ;r' ;:;;' i'ristru menta tity shoutd undertake a one_time .r;rr;; ;;;;;pa're a tist of ail casual, daity-waqe or ad hoc ,employees *ni nJiu Leen working ror more than ten years withoul i;;;;;"";:;;; Lr courts and tribunals ar,d subiect them .to a process viriflation as to .^/hetllr the./ are working against vacant posts- aii porru* tn" qu)tificaron ror tlhe pori*tJ ii-ro,'rl"s,ru,ize rheir :ZTi::: 7. At the end of six m?n.th: from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily_wis"ii-nJi)i"ruat emptoyees . stilt Dending before .Couis. c"ii"qrirttv, severat departments and tnstrumentalities did ,ii'i.ii-riurr" the one_ ttrne- regularization process. On the other.- nand, some covernment departments,or. instrum,eitaiiies unaertoot< tne one-time exercise exctuding ,"irZii 'Zri,or"u, consideration either on the ground that theircur{r.,*uru pending tn courts or due to sheer.gvlrsight. In such'iirlimstances, the emptoyees w4o were entitted t.-b; ;o:r;;;;;'ii,iurm of para s3 of the decision in umadevi, *iti ,;;-;;; ;;teir risnt to be c^oysid.ered for regu ta riza tio.n, rnsTslr- - 6.ii"rL'-,in. one_time exercise was compreted witho,,r- l)i,.,iill1'.._. . because the six month ,.-y:'!yt .considering their cases' or n u' . r p i ui :,'::' ; 1 2[, i ":"", :,t :t !,f i: ; ; : ; r' ; Z ; ! i,",i : l: -2, wage/ad hoc/those emptoyees . ytlo_ haA- iut"'ir'\o years of conttnuous service as on .10.4.200i- ;i;";; avaiting the protection of any interim orders oi ir"ii'2, "triOirnats. If any emptoyer had hetd the on?_.tim.9 .ruiri'ini"r.,JZ, p"ra s3 of umadevi, but did not consider th" ,;r;;;;';;;",i,iptoyu., *no were entiued to the benefit of para 53 "iuiiJiri,,,,ine emptoyer concerned shoutd consider their casesitri, Ji "'Lirtinuation of the one-time exercise. The one.time exeitiie iii-ie conctuaea ?!t! when-a!t the emptoyee,s *n" "n-iitiilJ'io'ie consiaerea tn terms of Para S3 of lJmadevi, t "r;,;;;;;;;r;."= - a , 3of e a ev b ,st n I e a n l I l I I --:==gF "=i6* =-= -- = 2t SN,J , d rov, Dractice of emDlovind rsons on dailv-waoe/ad- reoularize them on the oround that thev have serued for more than ten vears. therebv defeatino the constitutional r of the direct.ton ts that all a DDOtn tment. The true e e 70.4.2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi) without the orotection of anv interim order of anv court or tribunal. in vacant aosts- Dossessrno the reouisite oualificat on ete entitled to be cgnsidered for reqularization. The fact that the emolover has not undertaken such se of reoula rization within six months of the decision in onlv in Uma vi or that such exe was undertak recruitm n have wo I emplovees, the rioht to be considered for reoularization softh ahnva diraalian< t disentitle t,ma ev, zc 2 ,arra-jilaa a lim 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 tlmadevi 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 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 Umadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years seryice do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for

2.2 SN,J regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeat is disposed of acco rd ing ly.

14. In th e iudqment of the Aoex Court in Nihal Sinqh and oth ers v, State of Puniab reoorted in (2013) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose 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 ce tth f nce tha h rew re no n o and so there was iustifica ion for the State to util ise s of larqe number of eoole like the aooella ts for decades. It held th t san ctioned o sts do not fall )1 SN,J heaven" and th t the Statehastoc eate thembva conscto us choice on the basis of some rational assessment of need. Referrin qtoU madevi, it held that the aoo ella nts before them were not arbitrarily chose aoDorn ment was not an'irreoula r' aDDointment as it had etr ! n itia I ance wt h he statutorv rr roced ure t t f aderna ibed und r the Poli cann ot be heard ote nrirled to he absorbed into the services of the State on oermanent h 1861 t tt ev are n basis as. accordino to it. their aooointments were ou relv temoorarv and not a ainst anv sanctioned Dosts created bvt he State. It was held tha the iudo ent in Umadevi can not become a licence for exoloitation bv the State and its instru menta I ities and neither the Govern ment of Puniab nor those oublic sector Ban s can continue such a oracti ce inconsisten t with their obl iqation to fun ron rn accorda nce with the Constitution.

15. The iudoment of the Aoex C urt reDorted in 2O15 C Onlin ell reM 97 Sriniv h r nRe <<- 24 SN,J Nellore District. Andhra Pradesh and others, in oarticular Daras 7 and 8 reads as under: U We find it diffic It to acceDt the reasoninq adopted by the (7) Hiqh Cou rt. The riqht of the aDDellants to seek reqularization flows from the G.O. No-212 dated 22.4.1994 The aooellant have been in service of the first respondent not onlv orior to the issuance of the said G.O. but ev n 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 without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract wo:k from the appellants. e B. In 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 circumstances, 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 Collecto r/Cha irperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 4BO.

16. In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar reoorted (2015) a scc 265, the SuDreme 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 not illegal, and to ensure securitv of irregular but emDlovment o f those oersons who had served the State Government and their instrumentalities for more than ten vears". In that case, emplovee was workino for 29 years. 25 SN,J This decision aooroves arlier view exDressed in M.L.Kesari e acted above. State of Jarkhand v K mal P t4 7 SCC 223 similar vi ww I k Supreme Court and it was held as follows : , "47.... In view of the cateoorical findins of fact on the relevant content ous ssue that the resDondent emolovees have continued in their service for more than 7O vears continuouslv therefore, the legal orinciple laid down bv this Court in Umadevi case (State of Karnataka v Umadevi (2OO61 4 SCC 7 : 2OO6 SCC (L&S) 73) at oara 53 souarelv aDDIies to the Dresent cases. The Division Bench of the Hioh Court has riohtlv held that the respondent emolovees are entitled for the relief- the same cennot be interfered with bv this Court."

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.t2.2O22 - passed in W.P.No.276O2 ot 2019 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2023 dated 10.10.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated

09.08.2024 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 26 SN,J n AIR 2020 reme Court 3 69 an icul r Nos.1O0 and 101 held as follows: "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, but are dutv-b und to exercise such ow I wher has failed to exercrse or d d iscretion confe rred uDon rtbvastatute, or a rul or AD olicv d ecis ion of the Gov ernmentorha s exercised such discretion mala fid i rrelevant co n sidera tio n au h sw nqlv exerci ernm nt or ,oton

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 ucon the Government or a public authority.,.

20. The Division Bench of this Courtinit Judo ment ed in ted 1 .06.2 13 .A.N .742 f 201 an 4 ot 2O!2 while u Dholdinq the Judo men t dated o8.o9 .2010 Das sed in W.P.No. 24377 of 20O 7 and C.C.No .48 of 200a 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/circu lars dated 20.12.19g9, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2OO9 for regularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25- T of the ID Act prohibits unfair-labour practice by any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for such a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but irnfair labour practice attracting the provisions of Section 25_T of the ID Act. The earned Single Judge while relying on the decisions 77 SN,J of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respondents are entitled to regularization as directed in the impugned orders, as the learned single Judge considered all the aspects of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals." 2L. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment in W.P.No.272L7 of 2Ol7 dated L9.O9.2OL7 oassed reoorted in 2O18( 2 ALD Da o e 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.L994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time a bsorption/reg u la rization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, while giving direclions 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 larization/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 Man ula Bashini's case r It c<r rarf hv dirar-tianc r the tr f ha h Suoreme Court in Para 53 of its iudqment in Uma Devi's ca<e (s u nra\ ot rrF rm! €C hle for tho resoondents to take shelter under Act 2 ot L994 and G.O. Ms. No.212. dated 22.4.1994, to denv reoularization to rrrhn hawa admittadlv criteria laid down in ParAN .53 of the iudoment in Uma Devi's case ( sttora). t h rcfo ra riatiti.inarc caficfied n 2ti 'j] SN,J

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27,6.2017, in OA No.14.12 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ oetition is allowed with the di rection resoo ndents to consider req ularisa tion of the services of th e D etitioners aoainst the existino v cancies of Work Insoe ctors and a DDoint them subiect to their satisfvinq the criteria laid own rn Para No.53 of the iudo ment in Uma Devi's case (suDra). This orocess ust be com leted within two month s from the date of receiot of a coDv of th is order."

22. The Division Bench of this Cou rt in its Jud ment dated 21.04.2 O20 oasse d in I.A.N s .1 of 2O20 in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.2 3057 of 2 19 reoorted in 2O 20(4) ALD Daqe 379 at Da ras 45 48 and oara 50 0b erved as u nde r: - "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date. 48. It is not known followed the dectsron in Uma Devi'sca exola i ned in M.L. Kesari's case (su ora ) st resDo ndent ha not (suDra ), as nd underta ken a hv the x n without the intervention of the Courts and bu nals 1O.4.2OO6 and subiect them to a Drocessv ification as to whet er thev are workino aqainst vacant oos d for n m reqularize their services. ions f r a e h

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, L6 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the resnrlnd e nts are d ie ctedto reoularize n one-time basis Detitio ners'serv ces f rom the date ach of the Detitioners comD ete 10 ve dailv waqes from the rs of service on ;-*' 29 SN,J ini+irl s af i.r arrv r ittlt n ta done within two ( 2) weeks from t e date of re iot of coDv of the order." I B AF Th c-i,l ava.a tharr cl.r|I n t in the or sent case the 23. This Court oDines that resDo dents failed to discha rqe their d utv in exa inino eo u la rizati nof the reouest of the Detitioner for Detitioner 's services,who is workinq as full time sw eoer nd fu h r c r his th te in the rvice of er as reo u a r one for f full trv o ranttno ast qrade Dav with oeriodical inc rem nt revise d from ti eto time from the date of aDDoi ntment of the oetitioner, in I,urD ose accorda n e to law.

24. This Court ooi nes that etittoner is entitle con s Drav deration of Detitioner 's case for orant of the relief a s d for in the Dre nt Writ Petition in vlew A ex r ct t Division Ben of this Co urt in the .Iudome ts referred to and extracted above. ]0 SN,J

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 c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: i)(2o2o) l scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) scC Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 1209 (v) (2O17) 1 scc 148 (vi) 201O(9) scc247 (vii) (2013) 14scC 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (2O1s) 8 SCc 26s (x) (2014) 7 SCC223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 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) 2O20(4)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O and 854 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment dated O8.O9.2010 3l SN,J passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated L9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2O17 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 21.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and w.P.No.23057 ot 2OL9 (referred to and extracted above). S) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order. allowed r t claim of t r req u la rization of petitioner's services, and also the claim t h + a nafi+ n r treat the t naf + n rtn hel ra de ost of w r r f h r n for a!! ourooses bv qrantinq last o rade oav with oeriodical increments revised from ti e to time from the date of aooointment of the oetitioner and all conseouential benefits. dulv enclosino all the relevant documents an SN,J SUr)D ort of rletitioner's case as D ut orthint he f resent writ Deti tio n within a period of one (01) week f rom the date of receiot of co pv of the order and the respondents chall examine and a'a't nst dar fha came rn accor a f.r in conformit h s of natural orovidino an oooortunitv of Dersonal hearinq to the Detitioner, in terms of orders passed bv the Suoreme Court in Uma Devi's case reported in 20O6( 4) SCC Paqe 1. the iudoment passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 dated 08.o9.2010 reoorted in 2O11 (1) ALD. Paqe 234 and as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 1 .06.2013. and alsoas Der Division Bench -ludqment of this Court dated

19.O9. 2O17 passed in W.P.No.272t7 ol 2OO7 r ported in 2018(2)ALD Daqe 2A2 and also the Division Bench this Court dated 2L.O4.2O 2O passed in Judoment of I .A.Nos.1 of 2O20 in 1 of 2O19 in W.P.No.2305 7 of 2OL9 reoorted in 2O20(4)ALD oaoe 379 which had attained finalitv. within a oeri od of four (O4) weeks fro m the date of receiot of a coDv of this order, dulv takino into t considerat on he observati ns e lavv o th A x Court in the various ud m n rred oa l l l I I 33 SN,J extra cted above), and in oarticu lar, oara No.53 of iudom ent of the Aoex Court in the case of S te of decision to the oetitioner. However, t ere shall be no Devi v Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER One fair copy to the Hon'ble Mrs Justice Surcpal (for Her Ladyships Kind Perusal) \.., Nanda To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayathraj Department, Telangana Secretariat, _Hyderabad.

2. The Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. The District Collector and Chairman of Selection Committee and Minimum Wages Committee, Vikarabad District.

4. The Zilla Praja Parishad, Vikarabad District, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer.

5. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Bhantwara lr.4andal, Vikarabad District, TS.

6. One CC to SRI CH.GANESH, Advocate.[OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES ll, High Court for the State of Telangana.

10. One CC to SRI K PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR GPPS. IOPUCI

11.11LR.Copies '12.The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. 13, The Secretary, Advocales' Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

14.Two CD Copies. u, BSK BM I HIGH COURT DATED:2210712025 :ai: .-t \)() -a' o., * ,?AE:':::-.-- i-ga I;tt Sri 2 3 u,q 2026 f, * uF9 ORDER WP.No.27631 ot 2022 ALLOW!NG THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 9 ([ r j Ai]