N. Ramulu. Sio Narasimha v. 't_

lss uarelv cove red bv the order of 08.09.20 Ooa edinW .P.No. 24377ol 2oo7 !n 2011(r) ALD, Paoe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.7 82 of 20 o. dated I .05.2O13 andal l9.09 .2017 Dassed in W.P.N o.272L7 of2Ol7 re rted in 2O 8 (2) ALD is Court, d ted ord j da Dorte 5 SN.J Paqe 282 and also the order, dated 21.O4.2O2O oassed in W.P.No.2 O57 of 2019 reDorte d in 2O2O(4) ALD aoe 379.

5. Learned standino counsel aooearino on behalf of the t rl van petitioner as out-forth in the Dresent Writ Petition had not been add ssed to the resoondents herein as on date and Ilrarafar.a +h6 ^a+:+i,raar. r.r nna+ aarrrnlr rn inacii +lra oart of resoondents herein in considerino the qrievance of the oetitioner and hence, the relief as oraved for bv the oetitioner in the present wit Detition cannot be oranted and no Mandamus can be issued aqaanst the resDondents a aarrrrlr+ *ar *l + n r di rected to Dut-forth the oetit oner's ort vance as Dut- detailed t t lon bv wav of forth in the oresent Writ representation to the respondents herein and uDon receiDt of the said reoresenta tion the resoonde ts would consider the same in accordance to law, within a reasonable period. 6 Learned oun sela DDearlno onb eh alf of the tloner does not isoute the said subm n ssion made bv the learned ( ( 6 SN.J sta ndino counsel aD Dearinq on behalf of the re DOndent No.4 7 c CA xC rt in the d m n nPr m h v Stat o h der: an( ,, n 0 r "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, theli 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 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 tfreir services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entiued to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued tn service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. Th ey shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired fromth e oular establ hment and t e servtces 8 The Aoex Court ln the ca se of Dha rwad Di rict PWD ed in 2 o Pa n t l SN,J that the State should not keep a oerson in temoorarv or adhoc service for tono oeriod and have to treat such oersons as reoular one.

9. Para No.53 of the of the iudoment of the Aoex Court in the State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi, dated n n n n ! rted i 4SC hereunder:- n n n t rrrarnl emolovees have lr l u eeds to e clarified Th e mav be "53. One asDect cases where irreoular aooointments (not illeqal apoointments) as explained in S.V. NaravanaDoa 11967 (1) SCR 1281, R.N. Naniundaooa t1972 (1) SCC 4O9I and B.N. Naqaraian t1979 (4) SCC 5O7I to !n Dara 1 above. of dulv oualified and refe rrri ahl hrrra lta?rErat tt rE continued to been made rs or ,rrr+ +ha rernrk fn ''la n rof rsoft ha aarr*c ihrrnrlc inlarvant The question of reoularization of the services of such emDlovees mav have to be considered on merits in the liqht of the orincioles settled bv this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the lioht of this iudoment. In that context, the Union of fndia. the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to reoularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irreoularlv aooointed, ore in dulv rked for ten vears or who have sanctioned oosts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that +^ fill 0haca rartr rllr vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled uD, in cases where temoorarv emolovees or dailv waqers are beanq now emoloved. The orocess must be set motion withan sax mon ths from this date. .... r re un;larlrlron raarr ri+rrra6+c < { ( 8 s\. r

10. The iud ment of th AoexCo urt dated 20.t2.20 24, s o24 w o9 J o d h v h Daraqraoh Nos.l 2, 13 24, 6. 27 and 28 are here nder: th s d t nion of I dia "12.- Despite being labelled as .,part_time workers," the appellants performid these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearty two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, at was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibitities 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. e a the work oerformedbv the I m s. The recurring necessitates their nature of these duties 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 ln question was neither temporary nor occasional. the natureof nts w s n tr Th e Iaim n 9 SN,J

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 beneflts. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It hiohliohts the iudicia 's role in rectifvinq sifi a ns and workers receive fair treatment. 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 misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" appointments. It cateooricallv held that emolovees in irreoular aDpointments, who were enoaqed an dulv sanctioned oosts and had served continuouslv for more than ten vears should be considered for re U a t12at!on as a one- 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 "irregular" I ( 10 s\.t 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 a ppropriate. This selective aoolication distorts t oveeswho av e serv ces tao aanste nsable wea oonrzln ren ered decades. nt' o D 27, In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government 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 iunctioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overatt 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.L0.2078 are quashed; n SN.J The apoellants shal! be taken ll, dutv forthwith and their back on services reqularised forthwith. However, the aDDe llants shall not be entitled oecuniarv benefits/back waqes for the oeriod thev have not worked for but would be entitled to continuitv of services and the same for the said oeri for their urst- would be counte retiral benefitsl anY

11. The Judqment of the A Court dated 31.01.2025 reoorted in 2O25 INSC 144 in *SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM GHAZIABAD". in oarticular . the relevant ra Nos.15 19 f racted h *15. It is manifest that the ADDellant Workmen continuouslv rendered their services over several vears, sometimes soannino more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not Droduced in full, the Emolover's failure to furnish such records- desoite directions to do so-allows an adverse under well-established labour inference I n u DerDetual dailv-waoe or contractual enoaoements in dian la ru en Mor t and I al s nces whe ts vear after vear onoolno municioal reouir cannot be dasmassed summarilv as dispensable. a oenuine contractor oarticularlv in the absence of rmanent t eme n r t2 SN.J 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 employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in 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 tempcrary 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: a Misuse of "Temoorarv" Labe ls: Emol vees enoa qed for ork that ls essen ial, recurnno. to the functi onino of a n institution a n d tnteor a contra ctual." even w en thel tt oles mtrror as "temDorarv" !abelled I l3 sN.l o Su r deorives workers miscla ssification securitv, and benefits that t oular emolovees are entitled to, desoite oerfo rmtno identic I 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 counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. o Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another' This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."

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 ( l4 S\J 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 commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record. L7. In light of these considerations, the Employer.s discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.p. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev were enoaoed in e ntaa Dere nnial duties these workers annotbe alu ncerta i ntv. rel eqa hile conce rns r neqate r a do not a lv the molover of statutorv o lioati ons Indeed, bu eaucratic limitations cannot trumD the leqitimate riohts of workmen who have serv conti uouslv in qular roles de facto enti tleme nts. eoui able nded Der od.

18. The imouoned order of the Hiqh Co rt, to the c n w OU t tu t h a m n l5 SN.J meaninoful back waoes, is herebv set aside with the followinq i rectaons: 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. of absence (from the ate of Their entire oeri termination untal actual reinstatement) shall be for continuitv of servlce a d all conseouential be efits, such as senior for oromotion if anv. elioibili III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. Th t Em Res a fair and transDa nt Droce initia ln stx requl rizino the ooellant W rkmen wit months from the date of reinstatement. dulv thev have oerformed conside tno the fact th perenniat municipal duties akin to Dermanent posts. In assessino reoularization, the Emolover shall not imDose educati onal or r reoulrements w re never aoolied t Aooel! milarlv situated ant Workm en or to ( r l6 SN,J reo ular e Dlovees ln the oa To he ex ent that sanctioned vacancres for such d uties e ist or are reouired. the Res oonde t Emo lover shall exDedite !l necessarv dministrative Drocesses to ensure the se lonotlme emD love sa re not u ined n n s

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. Th AoexCourt in a iudqment reDortedin(2 o17) I J e s14 te f Pun s t (1) 2)(3). of the h atP as 54 nd id iudqment bserv as under: e r "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay- scale, merely for the reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The fu benih however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell iI eithgl of the two exceptions, were held entitted to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employeis. The 9xceptions recorded by the fult bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder: - "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and e?uality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. Bu s a a a, 17 SN.J I jh6 C)rla ..,;ih s ^^|i^F^ -^nri6,..i.,ctv Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient ts. uch dailv waoers, ad lono oeriod i.e. for 7O hoc or con entitled to ctuel aDo,ointees shall minimum of the regular oav scale without anv t work of allowances on the assumDtion oerennial nature is available and havino worked for such lono period of time' an eauitable rioht is ir claim for 'h cateoorv of oercons. created in reoularization. if any may have to be considered seoarately in terms of leoallv oermissible scheme. (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 70 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 iudqmen of the ADex Court reDo scc 247 M.L.Kesari and others. in oarticular, Daras 4 to 9 reads as een: State of Karnataka and others v in 2O1O(9) under:

4. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered on 10.4.2O06 ( oorted in 2006 (4) SCC 1). In that case. a Constitution BeDch of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and cou rts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re- engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 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 State or its instrumentalities, 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 l8 SN,J 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 : u ra tn eeds to be c arified. "53. One as ADDO ntmentsl as exolai ed in S. 967 cc4 a N.N ferred to in Dera 7 5 above. scR a R.Ar. Narava 7 4 f dulv o DDA o lified nctione the emolovees ha been made an rs of The ouestion of reoular ation of the serv n vears ot more but without contin n f u s in the c. es above ferred to and in the lioht s b e Cou t ,s a Go e tns mentali s should aon -time m easure. the n d ke steos to reaula rvices of such itreoularlv n lv sanctioned Dosts but not under co s t uD, i da, itments are 're e further ensu n reourre r "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 fulfilted : (i) The employee concerned shoutd have worked for 70 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentatity should have emptoyed the employee and continued him in service voluntariiy and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be i egat, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or l9 SN.J continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualiflcatlons, the appointments witt 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) ltmadevi casts a dutv uoon the concerned Goyernment ot instrumentalitv' to take steos to reoularize the services of those irreoularlv aooointed emolovees who had served for more than ten yearc without the benefit or protection of anv interim orders of v directed that such one-time measure must be set in -^.'-,a ^j 7o..4-20,)6). ( rendered 6. The term 'one'time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This woutd normally mean that after the decision in lJmadevi, each department or each instrumentalitY should undertake a one'time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunats and subiect them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite quatification for the post and if so, regularize their services. 7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in lJmadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual 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 Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily- wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of ( l0 SN,J continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without avaiting the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. 1f any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some empioyees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of umadevi, ihe'employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuatio; 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 53 of tJmadevi, are so considered. n o re that those who b Th Um devi is two- fol,d. First istoe , It ,n mo ve Dut o trib nals, e than ten d for rs of n fore the date f dect s ttmen ts/inst umen DETD etuate the Dract'ice of emolo Yrno waoe/ad- h teo larize them o ntheo round at theY have seryed for or statutorv Drovi a inU'madevi was f v rsons on da d ,s lities do no itment and 't d. latino t. Th e h n n n , 7 oo6 ts. t n e , e n a s e r has not un dertake the emolo reo lariza n withi,n six Um devi or that s h exe tse was such exerc onths of the dec ken on ,n ,n a the rioht to be con idered for a , ,,s ularize tion em lovee ,n measure. ,rs e t ed,

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 llmadevi or thereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents shoutd be considered in accordance with % 2t SN,J 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 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 lJmadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years sen/ice 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,

14. fn the iudqment of the Aoex Court in Nihal Sinoh and others v. State of Puniab reoorted in (2O13) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorPtion of Specia! Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their servaces 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 controt vested with the State. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctaoning of posts for a cadre is a matter ( ( 1) SN..I exclusively within the authority of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appoantments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. acce ot the defence that the were no san ioned ODle like the a Doellan services of Iaroe nu mber of decades. It held that "sanctioned oosts do nof fall from heaven" and that the State ha them bva fused to to cr It n h conscious cho ice on the basis of me ratio al assessment eferrin to Um a before them were not arbitrarilv chose their initial ADDO tntment was not a 'irreoula r'aoooint ment as it had been made in accorda ce with the statu on or bed u the Poli 1 hea r osa th t rbed into the services of t e State on Derma e acco tn h lr n w u tem rarv an not aoainst anv sanctioned DOSTS c bv the S te. It was held that the iudo ent !n U adevi cann of becom a licence for exDl itation the Sta 23 its instr mentalities and n e ther the Gover Puniab n r those oublic se rBanks can continue such a SN,J ment of oractice inconsistent with their oblaoation to functaon in accordance with the Constitution.

15. The iudqment of the Aoex Court reoorted in 2O15 SCC Online SC 1797 between B.Srinivasulu and others v ni al Cor or 'l b Netlore District, Andhra Pradesh and others, in oarticular Daras z and 8 reads as u nder: rvice of the fi (7) We find it diff i ult to acceot the reasoninq adopted bv the The rioht of the a Dellants to seek re ularization Hiqh Cou the G.O. No. 22 issuance of the said G.O. but even subseouent to the issue of G.O. till todav. 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 work from the appellants.

8. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunat belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appettants' 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 Cottector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh &' Ors. 2OO9 (8) scc 480. In Amar ant Ra v State f Biha r reoorted (201s) a SCC 265, the Suoreme Court held that 'The objective

16. ( r ( 24 S\I behind the exception carved out in this case was to permat regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illega!, and to ensure securr m lo m nt of hose h e nt an r m t r s se m sw tn 9 This apDroves earlier vaew exDressed in M.L.Kesa ri extra cted a ve. s s: 7 Sta fJ r o 2014 7 22 n e findino of feci nt emol' vees Suoreme co rt and it was hel as foll nv ,ew of the "47 _ relevant contentious issue that the res h teooiae a , t this Court in Umadevi case f, (20,,6) 4 SCC rnate avUmadevi : 2006 Scc (Lasl 73) at oara 53 souarelv re, te of Co with bv this

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.LZ.2OZ2 passed in W.p.No.276OZ of 2O19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha 25 SN,J Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 ot 2023 dated 1O.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLP No.32847 ol 2024.

19. The iudoment of the Aoex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Mahar ashtra and Other reoorted in AIR 202O Suoreme Court 3969 and in oarti ular oara Nos.lOO and 1O t held as follows: "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Arlicle 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-bound to exercise such oower, where the Government or a Dublic authoraw to exercise or has wronolv has fail ercised discretion conferred uoon it bv a statute, or a rule, or a poticv decision of the Government or has exercised h discr consid ration.

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. Divi ion B f o Ju dated 1O. 06.2013 oassed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1 O and 854 of 2Ol2 hile uoholdino the .rudoment dated O a.(}9.2()10 ( 26 Dassed in W. P.No.24 377 ot 2OO7 and c.c.N .48 of ob rvedasu nder:- s\ .l 2008 "Further, it is manifest from the materral on record that the services of the similarly placed persons who approached the law Courts were regularized. The appellant-Corporation atso issued various office orders/circu lars dated 20.12.1999, 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 Lnfair labour practice attracting the provisions of Section 2S_T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying on the decisrons of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respondents are entr ed 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 perspecuve, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals.,,

21. eD ton !n Judo m n o 7 t7 reDorted in 2018(2)ALD oao 282 at Dara 1 6 and oa ra 18 observed as under:- 27217 of w.P. "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 lJma Devi,s case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.7994, 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/regu 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. 27 SN.J The Supreme Couft is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in lJma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regularization/absorption exlst' Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 1OO and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22 .4. q94. do r whittle down the width an SuDreme Court in Pa f a53 f its iudom nt tn Uma vi's resDo e dents to ke shelter nder Act 2 of 1994 an G.O. etitlo e s, n f r rhrr have admilted satisfie Devi s case (suora). ^6+;ii^rr

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2017, in OA No.1442 of 2OL4, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside i^ +]ia and ih6 wrt1 r the Detitioners InsDe ors and aooo nt them subi ct to their vi's case suora). Th Drocess ainst the existino v cancies of Work isfvinq +tra dir.a-ii.irr ie allarrra/ rtillr ust be com leted receiDt of a coov of Uma within two months f m the date this order," ivision Bench of this Court in its Jud ment 22. The dated 21.o4.2tJzfJ Dassed in I.A. Nos.l of 2o2O in I of 2()19 and w. P.No.23O57 of 2(}19 oorted in o20(4)ALD Daoe 379 at DA ras 45.4 and oara 5(} 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 20O0. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date' as not 4a. It followed the decision in Uma Devi's case (suora), as v the I'st ot known resoondent is n vl, h /.-.- 28 s\.J exDlai ned in M.L. Ke ri's case (suora) and unde aken a emolovees who had orked for mo withou t the intervent on of the Cou r u wheth r thev are possess reouisite oualifications for the posts, and if so, reoularize their services. e rkino aoain t Yacant D than ten (1O) vears and Tribuna ls as on verifi

4.2 t

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the lst respondent reie-ting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles L4, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; rg resDon ents are dire ed to reoular ize on one-ti e basis !ed o coov of the order." e b c

23. This Court ooines that n the Dr sent case resDo ndents fail d to discha rqe their dutv in exam tnrno the Detitaoner for the reouest of req ula rizati nof Detitioner's services, who is workino as full time s eeDer e r r u ea t n r! h r f f b r qrade Da Y wath Deriodiqal increme nt revased from time to time from the date of aooointment of the Detit loner, tn accordance to law. 29 SN.J

24. This Court ooines that oetitioner is entitled Jor consideration of oetitioner's case for orant of the relief as praved for in the present Writ Petition in view of the observations of the Aoex Court in various iudoments (referred to and extracted above) and the view of the Division Benc s Court in the ludoments referred to and extra ed above.

25. Ta inq 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 ofthe respondent Nos.4 & 5 c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: ix2o2o) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Pase 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12()9 (v) (2017) l sCc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2o13) 14scc 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online S'CL797 h i0 SN.J (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2oL4)7 scc223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2oO6) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(a)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 ol 2O1O and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dated O8.O9.2O1O passed in W.P.No.24377 ol 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated

19.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.272L7 ot 2017 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W,P.No.23O57 ol 2OL9 (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. The Writ Petition is allowed. the oetitioner is d rected to out-forth the clalm of the oetitioner for 3l SN.J reqularization of Detitioner's services. and also the claam I f h +ton al. t^ irar+ +ha tem r nat itioner in lha ttrr,do nf s r t tha a r for all ourooses by qrantino last qrade oay with oeriodicat aDpointment of increments revised from time to time frorn the date of the Detitaoner and all consequentia! benefits. dulv enclosino all the relevant documents in earnrirtrt of t trlnar'c- rlca -c ltr a+-forth in th a rrracart+ wrat Detition. withan a Deriod of one (O1) week f rom the a d the res on n rthal I avrnrin ean rl rnncidar iha crrrr etna t't'ttrtla n aw tnc n f ustice b Drovidino an oDDortunitv of Dersonal hearino to the tcr]ll sofo rdarc naccarl b netitioner the Su rtr m r nci s at.i Um r flarri'a *aA ,r ,flflt/, \ SCC Pa e1 the iudomen t oassed in W.P-No .24377 f 2OO7 dated o8.o9 .2O1O reoorted tn 20lf (1) ALD. Paoe 234 and as confi rm tn W.A.No.78 2 of 2O1O dated 1().()6 .2O13, and also as oer Division Bench .Iudoment of this C urt dated ( {

19.()9.201 7 oassed in W. P. 20 18 2)AL D Daoe .272L7 ol 2OO7 reported an a2 a nd a so the Division Bench ) SN,J fudqment of this Court dated 2l.O4202Q passed in f.A.Nos.l ot 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 in W.P.No.23O57 ot 2OL9 reoorted in 2O2O(4)ALD Daoe 379 which had attained finality, within a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, dulv takinq into consideration the observations and the law laid down by the ADex Court in the various iudqments (referred to and extracted above), and in oarticular para No.53 of the n t h A 'x Cour tn he ca Karnataka v. Uma Devi and duly communicate the decision to the petltioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/.AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN ASSIST,ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTTON OFFICER To One fair copy to the HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA (For Her Ladyship's Kind Perusal)

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

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

4. The Principal Secretary, Panchayathraj and Rural Employment Department, State of Telangana, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

5. The Princioal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department' State of rs usPorurrerr Telangana,'secretariat, Hyderabad' -/

6. The Commissioner of Panchayathraj and Rural Employment' Govt' of Telangana, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad'

7. The Chief Executive officer, Zilla Praia Parishad, Medchal Malkaigiri District, TS. S.TheMandalEducationalOfficer,UppalMandal,MedchalMalkajgiriDistrict' TS.

9. One CC to SRI CH. GANESH, Advocate [OPUC] lo.TwoCCstoGPforServices-ll,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad. [OUTI

11.One CC to SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, S'C for ZPP & MPP [OPUC] 12.fwoCD CoPies ---M o \ '( I O * -.irrt t oR THE S T4 (,. ( ( I 8 t'tAR 2 ?60 .S PATCH (9 HIGH COURT DATE D:22107 12025 { / ORDER WP.No.24743 of 2O21 LLOWI N G TH E WRIT_PfTITION- WITHOUT COSTS ,A t