Civil Appeal No. 1254 of 2018 · The High Court · 2025

Order

Heard Sri CH.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-Il appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5.

2. Thc getitioner approached the Court seekinq Draver as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in the last grade post for continuously working till date in temporary post of last grade in contingent establishment on compassionate grounds from 22.04.L996 nor regularizing his services even on completion of 26 long years service by not extending the last grade pay benefits with periodical increments from time to time with effect from 22.04.1996 to till date from time to time with arrears as per G.O. Ms No. 687 dated 03.10.1977 to till date is highly unjust and unfair as per Article 14, L6, 21, 39(d), 43 and 300 (A) of 5 SN. J

Constitution oF India by subjecting petitioner for exploitative enslavement due to his helpless conditions of poverty poor social economical and politica I by taking it as advantage background by the respondents in continuing her on pittance wages of Rs 1623/p.m and prays to direct the respondent herein to treat the temporary services of petitioner in the last grade post of sweeper as regular one for all purposes by granting last grade pay with periodical increment revised from time to time from the date of appointment of the petitioner for working 26 long years without any service progress with 100o/o compensation on arrears of pay as per the principle laid by the Honble Supreme Court in c.A No. 34t6-3445 0r ioto, dated 19.02.2019 in the case of Union of India Vs Avtar Chand (2019 3 ALD SC 32) and in the case of prem Singh Vs State of Up and Batch cases reported in (2019 10 SCC 516) in paras 36 and 37 in the case of Netram Sahu Vs State of Chattisgarh and Anr in Civil Appeal No. 1254 of 2018 dated 23.03.2018 followed by DB Orders issuect in the case of Kadar Basha in W.p No.26788 of 2017 dated 10.08.2017 DB with cost by applying aforesaid principle laid by the Honble Apex Court under Article 141 of our Constitution and pass...,, 3 ounsel n v 6 SN, J ! n

4. 3 o Nij :l N .24 n n n 7 /^\) SN. J m m 3 m No.4 7 "36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30_ 40 o.r more years whereas they have been superannuated. -"Itublishment, As they have worked in the work_ct a.g"a 8 SN, J 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 fdcts 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 regular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day thev entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension." Dersons as reoular one. hereunder:- #Lr_ I 9 SN, J "5?- On asneat neade t.'r he clarifiad- Tha mav lre N 7

10. reDorted in 2 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 in Jaooo Anita and V "12. Despate being labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants perfoimed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous I I I -l l0 SN, J n h t h w rf rmed 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 claim bv the resoondents that these were not reqular Dosts lacks merit, as h aooellants was oerennial and fundamental to the functioninq of the offices. The recurrlng nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional. 24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means i SN, J of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It such misclassifications and ensurinq that

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misa pplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between legal" "irregular" appointments It llv h lnD teoori time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective aoolication distorts weaponizino it..aoainst emoloyees who have decades.

27. opinion, In light of these considerations, in our it is imperative for government t2 SN, J 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 positave precedent for the pravate sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. 28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is'allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 .10.20 18 are quashed ; ii. The aooellants shall be taken back on dutv forthwith and their services reoularised forthwith. However. the aoo llants shall not be entitled to pecunaarv benefits/back wa es for the Deriod thev have not worked for but would be entitled to co tinuitv of services for the said oeriod and the same would be counted for their Dost- retiral benefits." l3 SN, J urt dated 3 1.O1.2 23

11. Th Judo ent of the Dex 5I t4 A ND v NAGAR NIGAM, GH AZIABAD",ino articu lar, the relevant Dara Nos.l 5to19 are e racted hereun er: ls ma ifest "15. It that t e ADD el lant Work en co tin uouslv re dered their servr es ov r sev ral OT m a d a v s b r ,f E r t r t e r er e rcum n d r n a h R w n -all r f n e e w h on qorno muntct oal require vear after vear cannot be dismissed sum a rilv as di DEnsable, cularlvint e absence ofaoe nuine contra tor DA aoreement. 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 India in the following paragraphs: "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, t4 SN, J 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 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 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: o Misuse of "Temoorarv" Labels: Emolovees enoaqed for work that is essential, recurrino. and inteqral to the fun ioninq of an institution labelled as "tem orarv" or are often "contractua1," even when their roles mirror reqular emolovees. Such those of tion deorives worke rs of the misclassifi dionitv, securitv, and benefits that reoular emolovees are entitled to, desoite performinq 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 themselves excluded from opportunities for skill I l5 SN, J development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploltation 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, eipecially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. "

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer,s inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequenuy, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages degree of statutory violation commensurate with the evident on record. 17. ln light of these discontinuation of the considerations, the Appellant Workmen Employer's stands in I l6 SN, J violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev were enoaoed in essential, oerennial duties, these workers cannot be to oeroetual uncertaintv. While concerns releqate of mu icioal budqet and comolian recruitm ent rules merit consider tion, such concerns do not absolve the Emolover of statutorv obliqations b bu rea ucratic limitations can not trumD the I atimate riqhts of workmen who have se ed continuous lv ln reoular roles for an extended oeriod. de fa m n o f n h i+ aanfina

18. The imouoned order of the Hioh, Court. to the +^ fr rlrrr.a dailv- aoe enqaq ement with ut continui tv or meanrnq ul back waqes, as herebv set aside with the followin q dire rons: Arrnallrn+ w rk 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) l7 SN, J within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Th err e tire oerio ofa sence (fromth date of co untedfo rc ntin itv of servic e and all t u n a n h s r n m d t n t a III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entiiled to 50o/o of ihe back'wages from the date of their discontinuation ,ntil tn"i. actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three montiri r.orn the date of their reinstatement. IV.TheResDondent Em loveris directed to I n consider tnq thefact that th v haveDerformed Dosts. E Dlo orocedural m CI In rsh all criteria uirements we re oulred, t eRe oondent Emolo rs all to ensu !'e these Ionqtimeemolovees are not tn efinitelv retain on dailv waqe s contrarv to statutorv and eouitabte norms. s reqular zatio n, rmDosee ucational or nevCT ADDlied d assessan t or are lan w r r To e r e d n n

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. T CAD exC ourt ina dqment reDo in (2 oL7 1 c s 8 s fP a l8 SN, J vs Jaoiit Sinqh and others at Paras 54 and its sub-oaras (1)(2)(31, of the said iudoment observed as under: "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adiudicating 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 similar. The full bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the 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 wageL 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 ail other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (21 But if dailv wagers ad hoc or contractual appointees are not appointed dgainst regular sanctioned Losts and their services are availed continuously. with notional breaks- by the State Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient long period i,e. for 7O vears such daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay 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 cateoory of persons. Their claim for reoularization. if any mav have to be considered seoarately in terms of legally permissible scheme. (3) tn the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months."

13. The iudgment of the ApeX Court reported in 2O1O(9r SCC 247 between: State of Karnataka and others v *? r+'l;r5 t9 SN, J M.L.Kesari and others in oarticular oaras 4 to 9 reads as under: 4 Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointmen ts made without following the due process or the rules relating to appoin tment 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 ne Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regurar mannert 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 sfafe or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the ,:onstitutional 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 : I I 20 SN, J in dulv sanctioned oosts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that reoular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned oosts that reouire to be filled uo. in cases where temoorary employees or dailv waoers are beina now emploved. The orocess must be set in motion within six months from this datd .... '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 minirmtm qualiFications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. (iii) Umadevi casts a dutv upon the concerned Government or instrume talitv, to take steDs to reoularize the services of those irreaularlv aooointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. as a one-time measure. Umadevi- directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of iE decision ( rendered on 7O.4.2OO6). 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 departrnent or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and 2t SN. J tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casuat employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments 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 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 lJmadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider alt daily- wageiadhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without avaiting the protection of any interim orders of cou rts or tr;ibunats. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of lJmadevi, 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 to be considered in terms of Para 5i of Umadevi, are so considered. 3 The d ,re t Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure that those who have out in more n ten vears of continuous servrce tribunals. before the date of decision in llmadevi was departments/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the Drecti oe /ad- hoc/ sual for en Derro icallv for reoularization in of ernolo lono De 5 and Dets;ons Qaaan/ 22 SN, J 7O.4.2OOG (the date of decision in Umadevi) without the orotection 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 tlmadevi or that such exircise was undertaken only in reaard to a limited few. will nOt disentitle such emoloyees- the right to be considered for regularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure.

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

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 Llmadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six monthq 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 continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of lJmadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal.is disposed of accordingly. L4. 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption ',,b 4, 23 ( SN, J 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. Ita so refus dto h d r the and so there was iu ification ate to tilise services of larqe number of oeoole like the aooellan ts for decades. It h Id that hea n" an Dosts d not fall from create them va con cious ch oace on the basi of som rationa I assess ent of need. Referrinq to Umadevi, it held that the aooellants e Sta has t nction r m n r n h I 24 SN, J been made in accordance with the statutory procedure basis as, according to it, their appointments were ourelv temporarv and not against anv sanctioned posts created bv the State. It was held that the iudqment in Umadevi cannot become a licence for exploitation by the State and Puniab nor those public sector Banks can continue such a accordance with the Constitution. SCC Online SC L797 between B.Srinivasulu and others v Nellore Municipal Corooration Reo.bv its Commissioner, paras 7 and 8 reads as under: (7) We find it difficult to accept the reasoning adopted by the High Court. The right of the appellants to seek regularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994. The appellant have been in service of the first respondent not only prior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even 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 EG 25 SN. J without regularising the service of the appe ants and continued to extract work from the appettants. 8. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground thaa the appe ants approached th.e Tribunal betatedly, in our opinion, is'not iuitified. tn tne circumstances, the appeal is allowed modif)/ing'the order under directing that the appettants, se'rviies be regularised app.eal with effect from the date of their completing ili, five year continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District C_ollector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (B) SCC 480. -by

16. A SCC 255, the Supreme 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 illegat, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegat, and to ensure securatv of f I 26 SN, J

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.t2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.276OZ ol 2O19 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 ol 2O23 dated 1O.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2024 in SLP No.32847 ot 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, n I i f) 27 SN, J 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 pubiic authority.,, 20 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. Lggz, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.1.2009 for regularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25- T of thre 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.,, 2,.. 28 SN. J reoorted in 2O18(2)ALD Daqe 282 at Dara 16 and para 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 (supril), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 7994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, were in existence. The Supreme Court. while denouncing the practice of regularlzation 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 ula 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.t994, 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 7)_4 1q94 iudoment in Manjula Bashinfb case (suora), does not lower the traiectorv of the directaons issued bv the its iudqment in Uma Devi's SuDreme Court tn Para 53 l.a rirlt nar.rrri<< hla far a-rca /cr 16rr I T+ ic resoondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, to deny reqularization to the oetitioners. who have, admittedlv, satisfaed the criteria laid down in Pa N .53 of the iudoment in Uma Devi's case (suora ). 18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2OL7, in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to consider regularisation of the services of the oetitioners aoainst the existino vacancies of Work subiect to their satisfvino Insoectors and aDDoint the the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the iudoment in Uma DeviS case (suoral. This orocess must be completed within two months from the date of receiot of a copy of this order." do naf urhiffla r ri.lfh arr.l .1rlr rlr 29 SN, J

22. n h f his Cou in ts dated 21.O4.2O2O oassed in I .A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 W.P.No.23O57 ot 2OL9 e D 379 at oaras 45, 48 and oara 5O observed as under: "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date.

48. It is not known whv he 1st resDondent has not followed the decision in Uma Devi's case (supra), as exolained in M.L. Kesari's case (suora) and undertaken a .rr'ta-tirr.ra avarr.i<a nf nr rerraa emolovees who had worked for more than ten (1O) vears without the intervention of the Courts and Tribunals as on 10.4.2006 and subject them to a orocess verification as to whether thev are workino aqainst vacant Dosts and possess reouisite oualifications for the ooits, and if so, reqularize their services. / rilrr f

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, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the respondents are directed to regularaze on one-time basis petitioners' services from the date each of the petitaoners .6rnrrl.l'. th- initia! dates of their appoantment. But, thev shall not be A exeraica chrll ha ah+ilI6rl done within two (2) weeks from the date of receiot of copv of the order." i,i -'rv nrartahl.rr nf ca rv 1O arrc AA it fF.irrr r.ali 'l6c n 23, This Court ooines that in the present case, the respondents failed to discharoe their dutv in examininq the request of the oetiti oner for reo ularization of t 30 SN, J petitioner's services, who is workinq as full time sweeoer service of the oetitioner in the last qrade oost of full time sweeoer as regular one for all ourooses by oranting last time from the date of apoointment of the oetitioner, in accordance to law.

24. This Court opines that petitioner is entitled for consideration of oetitioner's casb for qrant of the relief as (referred to and extracted above) and the view of the and extracted above.

25. Takino 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 L'.qJ, : 3l SN, J c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: ix2o20) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) scc Pase 3e6 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2oL7) 1 scc 148 (vi) 201o(e) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2oL4) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.328,47 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2011 (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.782 of 2O1O and 8S4 of 2Ot2 while uploading the Judgment dated O8.O9.2O1O passed in W.P.No.24377 of 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.272Lt ot 2}tt (referred to and extracted above), 32 SN, J f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 ot 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2Ot9 (referred to and extracted above). S) In the laght of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order. t l I 35 SN, J 4 2 L9.O9.2O17 oassed in W.P.No.272L7 of 20O7 reoorted in Judoment of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O 20 oassed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 in W.P.No. 3O57 of 2O19 reoorted in 2o2O(4)ALD oaoe 379 which had attained n n \ i i l j ; I I i I I I i I I r 34 SN, J Miscellaneous petitions, if dfly, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY/ One Fair CoPY to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTICE (For Her LadYshiPs Kind Pe SD/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY T REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER ALLI NANDA To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayathraj Department, Telangana Secretariat' Hyderabad

2. The Principal secretary, Finance & Planning Department, Govt' of Telangana' Telangand Secretariat, Hyderabad'

3. The District collector, (Panchayat), & chairman of [Vlinimum wages Commitiee a Oiitiict'S'election. Committee, Nalgonda District'

4. 11 LR GoPies. 5. The Under secretary, Union of lndia tr/inistry of Law, Justice and company 6. The secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High court Affairs, New Delhi Buildings, HYderabad

7. The chief Executive officer, ztllaPraia Parishad, Nalgonda District,' 8. The tVlandal Development officer, Mandal Praia Parishad, Konda tt/allepally Mandal, Nalgonda District. L One CC to SRI CH. GANESH, Advocate [OPUC] 10.Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-II, High court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad . [OUT] 1 1 . One CC to sRl PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, SC FOR ZPP IVIPP [OPUC]

12.Two CD CoPies PMK GJP HIGH COURT DATED i1410712025 cc TODAY ORDER WP.No.27756 of 2022 THE s 1 s 0E[ I[25 * )t- ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \I