The High Court · 2025

Judgment

4. The State of Department, Telarlgana The State of Tdangana, :p6.rt. .Uy iS Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Tdangana 9ecretariat, Hyderabad. The Commissioner of Pancfrayathrai, Govt. of Telangana. Himayathnagar, Secretary, Panchayathrai The Zilla PraiaParishad, Yadadri Bhongiri District, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the atridavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to declare the action of the Rgspondents in not regularizing the services of petitioner in the last grade post, even after exhaust of all his life energies , youth since 38 long years, as uniust, unfair'and illegal and consequently. prays to direct the Respondents herein to r{utarize the services of the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dt. 2244-1994, by applying the otd rules as per the judgement of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Y.V.Rangaiah and Ors Vs. J.Sreenivasa Rao and Ots (AlR 1983 SC S52) by treating him as Full Time Sweeper as per his appointment letter and letter of the Headmaster dated.16.02.1984, from the date of his eligibility on par with his immediate iunior with all consequential monetary benefits including seniority in the Last Grade Ut Post by applyirlg principle laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of B.Srinivasulu \/s. The Nellore Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner in Civil Appeal No. 6318 of 2O15, dt. 17-08-2015, and also on her retirernent grant gratuity arnd pension as per the directions of the Honble Supreme'Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh in Civil Appeal No.OZgg of lA NO: 1 OF 2020 . ipeal No. 1254 ot ZO,IA.: .. .:....a

Petition under Section 151 CpC praying that in the in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may direct the respondents herein to regularize the services of the petitioner as per G.o.Ms.No-212, Finance and ptanning (FW.pc.ll!) Department, dt- 22-04::19g4, treating the petitioner as Full time sweeper as per the letter of the l-ieadmaster, in any one of ttte existing last grade post in 4th respondent Zilla F*ija parishad forthwith .:.., Gounsel for the Respondent No.i to 3: AGp FoR sERvlcEs I counsel for the Respondent No.4: sRl KrsHoRE RAo puskunu, SC FOR TG ZILLA PARISHADS The Court mader the fotlowing: ORDER 3 SN,J W.P.No.246l9 of 2020 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No. 24619 OF 2O2O ORDER: Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Rural Devetopment, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l and 3, tearned Government Pleader for Finance Planning, appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 and Sri Kishore Rao Puskuru, learned Standing Counset for TG Zilla Parishads, apPearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

2. The petitioner approached this Court with the following prayer: "...to declare the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of petitioner in the last grade post, even after exhaust of all his llfu energies , youth since 38 long years, as unjust, unfair and illegal and consequently, prays to direct the Respondents herein to regularize the services of the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.212, dated. 22.O4.L994, by applying the old rules as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Y.V.Rangaiah and Ors Vs. J.Sreenivasa Rao and Ots (AIR 1983 SC 852) by treating him as Full Time Sweeper as per his appointment letter and letter 4 SN,J W.P.No.246l9 of 2020 of the Headmaster dated.16.O2.L984, from the date of his eligibility on par with his immediate junior with all consequential monetary benefits including seniority in the Lerst Grade Post by applying principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.Srinivasulu Vs. The Nellore Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner in Civil Appeal No. 6318 of 2015, dated. 17,08.2015, and also on her retirement grant gratuity and pension as per the directions of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh in Civil Appeal No.6798 of 2OLg, Netram' 'Sahu Vs. State of Chattisgarh in Civil Appeal No. 1254 of 2018, and pass..."

3. petitio r rela n r the.affidavit filed in suooort of the oresent writ oetition Elahinq in oartacular. to the services rendered bv Detitioner with the resoond ents herein for more than a @de-contends that the petitaoner is entitled for the Dra for in the oresent writ ition. PERUSED E RECORD:- DISCU ION AND CONCLUSION:- 4. Lear ed cou sel aooearlno on behalf petitioner submits that the subiect issue in the present 5 SN,J W.P.No.2rl6l9 of2020

5. 'l a 6 SN,J W.P.No.246l9 of 2020 11 respondents herein and upon receiot of the saad representation the resoondents woutd consider the same in accordance to law, within a reasonable oeriod.

6. tgarned counsel aooearinq on behalf of the oetitioner does not disoute the said submission made bvt e learn standin counsel aooearino on beh lf of Dondent No.4 7 1S The Dex Cou in the iudoment o2(l) (L&s) i Prem Sinoh v StateofU r Prades and rted tn ( oth rs, at ra 36 ldasu der: "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 sup{3rannuated. As they have worked in the work- charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even ai 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 tharr 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 hav€ worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as otherj have beern 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 wa-ges had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. Thei shall 7 SN,J W.P.No.246l9 of2020 be entitled to receive the pension as if they have

8. The Aoex Court in the case of Dharwad District PWD a

9. m :l n n 'l n 8 SN,J W.P.No.246l9 of 2020 r' settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to ten years or more in dulv sanctioned oosts but not itments are unde ken to fa I those v cant @ arllbeino now emoloved. The orocess must be set

10. The tudo ent of the oer Court o24 reEtgd in 2O24 Law Suit(SC) 12O9 in Jaqoo Anita and v, Union of India a d others- and the relevant oaraqraoh Nos.12, 13, 24. 26, 27 and 2g are extracted o-12 2 ted 2 a hereunder: "12. Despite being labelted as ..part-time workersr" the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in - nature, instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated wath sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. 9 SN,J W.P.No.246l9 of 2020

13. T] a The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional' 24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation 197 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 increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should status and the determine emPloYment and benefits. It corresponding rights l0 SN,J W.P.No.246l9 of 2020

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 judgrnent aimed to distinguish betureen "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. n n However, the laudable inte,rt of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dlcta 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 terrrporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases wht:re regularization is appropriate. This I 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 orglanization's functioning, not only contravenes int,-'rnational labour standards but also exposes l1 SN,J w.P.No.246l9 of 2020 the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary Iitigation, promote iob and uphold the PrinciPles of nt to justice and fairness that they are embody. This aPProach aligns international standards and sets a f for the private sector to follow, the overall contributing of labour practices in the country 28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders pas*d 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

27.1-O.ZOLA are quashed ; t!. n l'l 1 'l u a ,l :l

11. t2 SN,J W.P.No.246l9 of 2020 "15, 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 Inclia in the following paragraphs: "22.. The pervasive misuse of temporary em.ployment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely aff€cts 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 stanOaros. l3 SN'J W.P.No.246l9 of 2020 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 . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen ln 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: Ternporary 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 l4 SN,J W.P.No.246l9 of 2020 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 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 circu msta nces. "

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer,s inatrility to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the App,ellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recrtgnized 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 delree of statutory violation evi(Jent on record. 17., In light of these considerations, the Employer,s disr:ontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it l5 SN,J W.P.No.246l9 of 2020 is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Ac-, 1947, and that thev were I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Ad, L947, ls declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen snatl Oe 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 pbsts akin to the duties they previously t6 SN,J W.P.No.246l9 of 2020 C performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. 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 relnstatement.

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.,, 17 SN,J W.P.No.246l9 of 2020

12. The Aoex Co rt in a iudoment reDorte in (2OA7l L Suoreme Court Cases 148, in State of Puniab and others vs Jaqiit Sinoh and others at Paras 54 and its sub-oaras (1X2X3 ), of the said iu ment observed s under: "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above conttovetsy 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 j udg me nt a re extracted hereu nder : - \1) A daily wager, ad hoc or @ntractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection prc@ss based upon fairness and eguatity of oppoftunlty to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitld to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2) But if dailv waoerc. ad hoc or ontractual . aooointees arc not apoointed aaain* regular sanctioned oosts and thelr services ate availed continuoustv. with notional bteaks, hy the State iE indru, Go sufficient lono oeriod i.e. for 70 vearc. such dailv wagerc, ad hoc or contractual apooint*s shall be entitted to minimum of the regular pav scale without anv allowanc* on the assumption that work of oerennlal naturc is available and havino wo*ed for such lono oeriod of tlme- an eouitable rioht is created in such cateoory of oer*ns, Their ciaim for reoularization, If anY. mav have to be terms of legallv consictered oermissible scheme. - seoarahtv in ment or talities (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay sale after more than three years and two months of completion of 70 yearc of continuous working, a dailY l8 SN,J W.P.No.246l9 of2020 wager, ad hoc or contractuat employee shalt be entitted to arrears for a period of three years and two months.,

13. The I oment oft he Aoex Court c247 een: 20 o(9) Karnataka and others_g M.L.Kesari and others, in particular, paras 4 to 9 reads as under: Dorte . n 4 t 4 case. a Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without foltowing the due process or the rules .relating to appointment did nol confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direa their ibsorption, regularization or re- engagement nor make their service and lhe High Court in exercise of jurisdiction permanent, under Article 226 of the Constitution shoutd nol ordinarily issu'e directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitmint had been done in a rggular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and thai the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not ilter-fere unduly with the economic arrang6ment of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, noi tend themselves to be ,tnstruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court hetd that a temporary contractual, casual or a daity_wage emptoyee !oe1 yt have a tegat right to be made peimanZnt uniesi he hacl been appointed in terms of the rules or in adherence of Artictes 14 and 16 of the Constitution, This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : 'relevant -further 19 SN,J W.P.No.246l9 of 2020 of regularization of the seruices of such emplovees mav have to be considered on meri,s in the light of the p!'inciples settled bv this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in Che lioht of this iudgment. In that conbxt, the Union of India. the State. GovernmenB and their instrumentalities should take steps to ,Egularize as a one-time measute. the setwlices of such irregulartv appointed. who have wo*ed for ten vearc or more in dulv sanctioned ooi;E but not under cover of orderc of the coutb or of tribunals teaular recruitmenas are undertaken to fitl tho* vacant sanctioned posltr that require to be. filled uD' in waoerc are beinq now emoloyed. The oro@ss must be set in motion within six months from this date. .... "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the genenl principles agalnst ' regularization' enunciated in lJmadevi, if the following conditions arc fulfilled ancunrr thet emolovees te,,,,o,re furthet ,d (i) The employee concemed should have worked for 70 years or more in duty sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or trlbunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the emptoyee 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 appointffenE are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qiuatifications, the appointments will be consldered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was wo*ing against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. (iii\ llmadevi casts a duv unon th? concerned Government Qr instrumentalitv- to t-ak? steos to. of tho ineoularln aooointed emplovees who had served for more than ten yeans 20 SN,J W.P.No.246l9 of 2020

6. T'he term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normalty 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, daity-wage or ad hoc employees whc' have been working for moie thin ten years without the interuention of coutts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the pos,! and if so, regularize their services.

7. ,qt the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, arses of several daily-wage/ad-ho(casuat employSel were still pending before CourtZ. Consequenily, sev,eral departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularization process. On the other hand, some Goternment departments or instrumentalities undertook the one,-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were per'ding in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circum.stances, the employees who were .ititled 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 *as co-pl'.ted without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of umadevi has expired. The one_time exercise should consider att daiiy-wage/adhoc/those emO!9yee9 who had put in IO years of continiors ,"*ire u, on 70,4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orderc of courts or tribunals. If aiy emptoyer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of iJmLdevi, but did not consider the cases of some emptoyees who weie enti ed to tle benefit of para 53 ot llmadevi, the emptsysT concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuatioi of the one_ time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded onty yhen allthe employees who are entitted to bi-iinsiaered in terms of Para 53 of tJmadevi, are so consideni.-- 2t SN,J W.P.No.2zl6l9 of 2020

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

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has direded that the cases of respondents shoutd be considered in amrdance with taw. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zita Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regulariza tion exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casua l/ad-hoc employees sen/ing the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such emPloYees (induding the futfitl the requirements mentioned in para 53 of have to be If they fulfill them, their services Umadevi regutarized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken 1to3 by ignoring or omitting the cases of then their cases because of the pendency of these cases, shalt have to be considered in continuation of the said one to say that if time exercise within three months. It is needless **:; .. - )) SN,J W.P.No.246l9 of 2020 a thet respondents do not fulfilt the requirements of para 53 of Untadevi, tleir services need not O.- ,iSit"iir"ct. If the sfftployees who have completed ten yeiZ- ieiice do not p-?,i1:t,!: :lypy.nat q.uatifi@tions prescrioii ior the post, at tne dme Of their appointment, they may be considered for reltularization in suitable lower posts. Thi; app;;i is disposed of acardingly.

14. 'w the Supreme Court considered the case of €, absorption of Specaal police Officers appointed by the re paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made avaitabte. ft held that the mere fact that wages wene paid by the Bank did not render the appeflants 'emproyees. of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the creataon of a caclre 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 z, SN,J w.P.No.2,l6l9 of 2020 a n !t n _r _l n 24 SN,J W.P.No.246l9 of 2020 e'

15. (7) The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. the above mentioned G,O. the Inspite of 21.?(supra). respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without reg,ularising the service of the appellants and continued to exl'ract work from the appe ants 8, In the circumstan@s, refusing the benefit of the above me,ntioned G.O, on the ground that the appellants approached the Trtbunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justifred. In the the appeal is ailowed mc,difying the order under appealby directing that the appellants' services be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous service as was lai<l down by this Court in Col I ector/ Ch a i rp e rso n & Ottiers vs, M.L, Singh & Ors. 2O0e (8) scc 480. District

16. 8 SCC 265. the Suoreme Court held that .The objective behind the exception carved out an this case was to permit regularazation of such appoantment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure 25 SN,J W.P.No.246l9 of 2020 n o

17. 1

18. The Judgment of this Court dated 06.r.2.2022 passed in W.P.No.276O2 ot 2O19 which pertains to Sri Lakshmi regularazation of 35 NM Narasimha Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda by the Division Bench Dastrict, which had been upheld of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2023 dated 26 SN,J W.P.No.246l9 of 2020 (' 1O.1O.2O:13 and also confirmcd by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLP No.32847 ot 2024.

19. The iudo of the Aoex Court in ar: Krishna Mandir 'Irust V. State of Maharashtra and Others reoorted in R 2O2O Suoreme Court 3969 and in oarticular ra Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows: r wlr ?c "10t). The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Arti':le 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of rnandamus, but are dutv-bound to exercise such iha Garrar.nnrani nrrhlia authoritv has failed to exercise or has wronqlv exercised discretion conferred uD nitbva glatute, or a rule, or a oolicv decision of the n mala fide. or on irrelevant con rnment of has exercised such di eration. ^ t 10:1. 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." 2(J. The D vision Ben of this Co rt in its Judqment dated 1o.o6. O13 oassed in W.A.Nos.782 ot 2OaO and 854 of 201 wh le uo oldino the ,udament dated QE-.O!L2O1O oassed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and c.c. o.48 of 2OO8 obse as under:- "Further, it is manifest from the rnaterial on record that the se'vices of the similarly placed persons who approached the law Courts were regularized. The appellant-Corporation also 27 SN,J W.P.No.246l9 of 204) issued various office orders/circulars dated 20.72.L9a9, 11.09.1992,06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for regularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25-T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for such a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of Section 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying on the decisions 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."

21. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judoment dated 19.O9.2O17 Dassed in W.P.No.272l7 ol 2()7.7 reDorted in 2 1a(2)ALD oaoe 282 at oar 16 and oara 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 lJma 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 absorption/regularization 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.L994, 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 1ob and G.o. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994. do not 28 SN,J W.P.No.246l9 of 2020 wnittte aown tne wiattl a &hini's case fsuora), does-not lower the traiectory of Se directions issued by the Suoreme Court in para 53 gf_its ludgment in Uma iS. thg.efore. not oermiss shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and c.O. Ms. No.212, dated (suora ). 18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27 .6.2OL7 , in OA No.1442 of 2O14, on the file of the Tribunal is s;et aside and the writ oetition is allowed with the direction to the resoondents to consider reoularisation vacancies of Work Inspectors and aoooint them subiect tg_tnelr satisfyin" tt o'[_ the iudoment in Uma Derzj,s case (supral. This two month frorn cess must be com leted withi the da e of receiDt of a coov of this order.'1

22. The D vision Bench of this Co rt in its -I ment dated 2 1.04. O2O oassed tn I.A.t{os. ot 2(,2', a 2(Ja9 and W.P.No.2 57of2 19 reDo !n 202(J 4)ALD oa e 379 at ras 45. 48 and oa a5O rved as under:- "4:;._ There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put ln almost (30) yeari of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously working wit:hout any Court orders in their favour irom 1990 till date. - 48. I is not known whv the 1st re has not Tr bunals son 1 o-4- ubiect a 29 SN,J W.P.No.246l9 of 2020 servaces.

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; o :l m 1 'l

24. This Court ooines that oetitioner is entitled for 30 SN,J w.P.No.245l9 of2020

25. a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learn ed counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner a learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4. 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 ( ai) 1990(2) SCC pase 396 (iii) 2O2s rNSC 144 (iv) 2(J24 La w Suat(SC) t2O9 (v) (2017) I scc I (vi) 2o1o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Ontine SC ttgl (ix) (2o1s) 8 scC 26s (x) (2014) z s0c 223 (xi) SLP No.32841 ot 2024 3l SN,J W.P.No.246l9 of 2020 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2oo6) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 d) nch order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 ol 2O1O and 854 of 'it 2O12 while uploading the ludgment dated O8.O9.2OIO passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OQ7 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 ol 2O17 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l ot 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2019 (referred to a above). 9) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived nt order. at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 --.,4 '- -t- 32 SN,J W.P.No.2,l6l9 of2020 a I Il . *-*-- _ \- 33 SN,J W.P.No.246l9 of 2020 Judoment of this Court dated 21.O4.2O2O oessed in I.A.Nos.L of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 in W.P.No. 3057 of 2O19 reported in 2O2O(4)ALD paqe 379 which had attained finalitv. within a period of four (O4) Weeks from the date of receiot of a coqv of this order dulv taking into consideration the observations and the law laid down bv the Aoex Court in the various iudqments (referred to and extracted above), and in particutar- oara No.53 of the judgment of the Aoex Court rn tfie case of State of Karnafaka v, Uma Devi and duly communicate the decision to the oetitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if dflY, Petition, shall stand closed. , pending in this Writ t --),- - That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as'above witness rhe Hon'bre sRr AF[iiBii iililiAR-6rfibi,_ii-" ctrieiiustice onrhis Mondav' the Twenty'fi;H'D;y-;'j;u, il; ni"ui.na and Twenty Five' //TRUE coPY" "'-as'BFitYql,EFRRX secnd6rFtcER IEPALLI NANDA oneFaircopyi?:1"##}}li,f"tHI'F5,t'"1i=,,ALLINT{rv^ . LL - r r^-,r-ra to,,r. ,n" principar secretary, pqlghayathrai Department, Tetangana secretariat, L' 2.ThePrincipalSecletgU*.FlnanceandPlanningDepartment,Telangana selretilia{, Hvoeiauad' State of relangana' \ -- Hvi"iruid. r' 3.TheCommissionerofPanchayathraj,Govt.ofTelangana,Himayathnagar' 4. The chief Executive office r,zillapraia parishad, Yadadri Bhongiri District' 5. 11 LR CoPies

6. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of LaW Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. \

7. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High Court .. Buiklings, Hyderabad.

8. One CC to SRI CH.GANESH, Advocate [OpUCl 9. Q_qe C! to SRI KISHORE RAO PUSKURU, SC FOR TG ZTLLA PAR|SHADS IOPJCI 't0. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES l, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI 1 1 . Twc CD Copies BSR BM o fi*^' '.5 'a I I \ \ : j I HIGH COURT DATED: 2810712025 ORDER WP.No.24619 of 2020 2 (. r{ F r? OF T47 "S'gv .::- i..,. t' (.' :'=.: :. .!; ' \\ + ALLOI'VING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS cD