P.Sona v. 1. The Strate of Telangana

2O1O pas din W.P.No.2437 7 of 2OO7 reported tn o8 20Lt(1) ALD, PAoe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 ot 2010, d ated 1O.O6.2O 3 and also or er. dated 19 .o9.20L7 oasse d in W.P.No .272L7 of 2 17 reoorted in 2OL8 (2 ) ALD Paoe 28 2 and also th order, dated 2L.04.2020 0assed in W.P.N o.23O57 of 2019 reDo ed in 2O2O(4 ) ALD Paq e 379"

5.L ear edstandin resDo dent No.4 submits that the d cou nsel a rlDea rtn o alf of the rievance of the oner a t-forth the present Writ Petation had not been addressed to the resoonde nts herein a s on date and t therefore he oetitio er cannot co olain inaction on the the qrtevanceof oart of resoondent s herein in cons deri n the o titioner and hence, th relief as petation er in the oresent Wit Detition cann ot be oranted o Mandamu s can be is ued aqainst the resDo ndents rma be d htfo r and the o h reunder as e aved for v the o n e u r d irected to out-forththe Detition er's ortevance as out- forth in the Dre nt Writ Petitionbvw av of a det a iled 6 SN. .I wp 24654 2070 reD resenta tion to the resoondents and u on f the sa id represe tation, the resD ndents would C consider the same !n accordance tol nable De riod. a rn a

6. Learned coun sel ao eanno on beh lf ot the Detitioner does not disoute the said submission made.l ,v the Iea rned standino cou nsel aooeaflno on behalfoft ! e resoondent No.4 7 The Aoex Court in the iudqment reoortg d in (2O2o)1 in Prem Sinoh v State of Utta Prade sh and scc (L&S) ! others, at para 36 heldasun "36. There are some of the employees who hl /e not been regularized rn spite of having rendered the se. ices for 30_ 40 or more years whereas they have been sup -,rannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged e; ablishment, not against any particular project, their Serv ( ls ought to have been regularrzed under the GovernmenI instructions and even as per the decision of this Coun in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Cour: in the said decision has lard down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the :over of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the ;ervices be regularized of such employees. In the facts , f the case, those employees who have worked for ten y: trs or more shou.ld have been regularized. It would not L: proper to regulate them for consideration of regularizati( n as others have been regularized, we direct thlt their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is ma C -, clear that they shal not be entitled to claiming any dues rf difference '7 SN. J \\p 2165.1_2020 in service regularly in wages had they been continu€d before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired the services from the reoular establishment and rendered bv them rioht from the dav thev entered the work-charoed establishment shall be counted as oualifvino service for DUrDose of oension." I The Aoex Court in the ca of Dharwad Distri ct P WD Laterate Dailv Waoe Emolovees Association Vs State of Ka rn ata ka reDorted in 1990( ) SCC Paoe 396 laid orinciole that the State should not kee o a oerson in te Dorarv or adhoc service for lonq Deriod and have to treat such persons as requ lar one. 9 a No.53 ud me heA ex Co r in the State of Karnata ka and others Vs. U madevi, dated 10.04.2006 reoorted in ( 2005) 4 scc 1is extracted he reu nder: - 1 scR 12 "53. One asoect needs to be clarified . There mav be cases where irreoular DDointments (not illeoal aDoointmen ts ) as exolain ed in S.V. Nara ana DOa L967 1 scc 409 'l and B.N. Naqaraian t1979 (4) cc 507I and referred to in Dara 1 5 above, of dulv oualified sa atianarl vacA t itrict sml atht hav nersons ln d ul been made and the emolovees have continued to work for ten vears or more but without the interven onofo rders of the courts or of tribunal s. ion of the services of such The ouestio n of reoulariza t972 un a n a 8 SN, J w_24654_2020 I 3 I m n to the nnct emDlovees m avh ave to be consider, I on merits in s Court in h vereferred to an liqht of this nth t conte of India. the State Govern ments and their in ;tru menta lities should take stCDs to reoularize q s a one-time measure. the services of such irreou rrlv ao ointed, who have worked for ten vears o - more in dulv sa nctio ned Dosts bu nof under cover of the courts or of tribunals and s ould furl I er ensure that reo ul arr ecru atments are U nderta ke, t L to fill those vacant sanctioned oosts th t reouire :o be fi lled uo, in cases where tem porarv emDlovees I rr dailv waoers are beinq now em loved. The Droces must be set in ltIqtion within six months from this d rf orde t L ..!

10. The iudoment of the Apex Court dat_i 2O.L2.2O24. reDorted an 2(J24 LawSuit(SC) 1209 in J slo A[!ta and others v Union of India and others, arr I the relevant C P?faqraph Nos.12, L3, 24, 26, 27 and 2 are extracted t hereu nd er: "12. Despite being labelled as "I), rrt-time workers, " the appellants performerr I these essential tasks on a daily and cor tinuous basis over extensive periods, rang rrg from over a decade to nearly two decad e ;. Their engagement was not sporadac or tclt nporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, ,egular, and akin to the responsibilities lypically associated with sanctaoned posts. [vl,,reover, the respondents did not engage ar y other personnel for these tasks duri tg the appellants tenure, underscorirrr I indispensable nature of their work. 9 SN. J wp 246j,1 2020

13. The claim bv the resoondents that these were not reoular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work oerfor ed bv the aooellants was oerennial and fun amental to the functionino of the offices. The recurnng 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, M icrosoft 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 avoidrng payment of employee benefits, thereby increasrng 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 hiqhliqhts the iudicia rv's role in rectifvinq such m isclassification s and en wo rkersreceive fa ir treatment, 10 SN, J t9 24654 2020 ld that DOSts and had ; rpra ) 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (r sought to curtail the practice of backdoor r : rtries .r ional and ensure appointments adhered to constitr t; are principles, it is regrettable that its principl often misinterpreted or misapplied to ; This legitimate claims of long serving. employee: juigment aimed to distinguish between '' I egal" "irregu lar" 'r ents. appoint' ?r in m II irreo u la r aDDO|ntme nts. whow ere e oa ged in dulv san ctione sx :rved co tin u ouslv for more than ten vears l;l tould be co nsidered for re u la rization asa one- ti e measure. However, the laudable in:' :nt of being subverted when instit Jtions the judgment is rely on its dicta to indiscriminately rejert t the claims of emPloYees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but mere r lack adherence to Procedural forma lities. Gover lment departments often cite the judg ment in Unl r Devi (supra) to argue that no vested ri 3 tt to reg ularization exists for temporary emf lryees, r xplicit overlooking acknow ledg ment oF cases where regulariz::ion is approp riate. This selective apolication clj rtorts tivelv rit an wea Don izi noit aoa r nst emDlovees wh g have services _ over rendered indis Densable deca des. judgment's nt's s e d €(

27. In light of these considerations, opinion, it is imperative for gov{l departments to lead by example in provi(l and stable employment. Engaging worker temporary basis for extended periods, er; when their roles are integral to the organi functioning, not only contravenes interr labour standards but also exposes the orgttt to legal challenges and undermines en-t morale. By ensuring fair empl( practices, government institutions ieduce the burden of unnecessary liti ln our rg fair ; on a recia lly ation's ational ization rloyee l ation, SN. J \\P 24654_2020 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 overall betterment of labour practices in the country. 2A, 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

27.1O.20 lB are quashed; The aopella nts shall be taken ii. dutv forthwith nd their back on forthwith. req u la rised servrces However, the aooellants shall not be ntitled benefits/ back waoes for t e oeriod thev hav not worked for ut would bee ntitled to continuitv of rvlces for the said oeriod and he same would be cou nted for their Dost- retiral benefits. " n

11. The Jud ment of the Aoex Court dated 31 .o1.202s reoorted in 2O2 5 INSC 144 in "SHRIPAL AND A OTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM. GHAZIABAD", in oarticular, th releva nt s.15 to f xtracted he *15. rt as manr est that the AI,pellant Workmen conti n ouslv rend ered their services over everal Dannrnq more than a decade. vea rs, sometim t2 SN. J |tp-24654 2020 J ! te dir Even if certain muster rolls were not Drl duced in full, the Em olover's failure to furni h s :h re rds- ions to doso -allows ,_ an adverse 4e well-est ablisl- ld labour inferen ce iu ris rudence. Indianl bour law stro olv disfavors ual dail -waqe or contractual et! raoements in circumstances where the work is I ermanent in lv and leqallv, worke t who f cioal re urrements ve 3 r after vear onoo rnq can not be dismissed summarilv a!y dispensable, oarticularlYil the absence of a qent Lj ne contractor aqreement. At this juncture, it would b r appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinil 3 "temporary" employment practices as done by a reccr t judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India l the following parag raphs: Mo "22. The pervasive misuse of tempo- rry employment contracts, as exemplified in this r ase, reflects a broader systemic issue that a: rersely affects workers' rights and job security In the private sector, the rise of the gig econonr' has led to an increase in precarious employmer I arrangements, often characterized by lack of benef [s, job security, and fair treatment. Such pract ( es have been criticized for exploiting workers I td undermining labour standards. Government insti rtions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairr ess and justice, bear an even greater responsibill to avoid such exploitative employment practiccs, When public sector entities engage in misu.r of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the r ( trimental trends observed in the gig economy I lt also sets a concerning precedent that can erod: publlc trust in governmental operations. l) SN, J wp_24654 _2020

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: M su se of "Tem Dorarv" Labels: Emolovees a enqaqed for work that is essential, recurrinq, and inteqral to the functioninq of an institution are often labelled as "temporarv'l or "contractual," even when their roles mirror reqular emplovees. Such those of masclassification deprives workers of the diqnitv, securitv, and benefits that reqular employees are entitled to. lesoite oerforminq identacal 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 sig n if ica nt. 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 l4 SN. J $ P 21654_ 2020 a deliberate effort to bypass the obli! ation to offer regular emPloYment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Beneft;: Temporary employees are often denied fundarl lntal benefits such as pension, provident fund, hea lth insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security ;ubjects them and their families to undue hardshil especially in cases of illness, retirement, 1) unforeseen circumstances."

16. The High Court did acknowledge t re Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminationsi Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wa I ls with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regr€t ably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant /Vorkmen were left in a marginally improved yet still u r certain status' While the High Court recognized the impr rtance of their work and hinted at eventual regularizati rn, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meanirr' ful back wages commensurate with the degree of stir utor-y violation evident on record. L7. ln light of these considerations, -he Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Wor!: ren stands in violation of the most basic labour law prilr iples Once it is established that their services were tc- linated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of th: U.P tndustrial -e enq aqed in Disputes Act, 1947, and that essential, oerennial duties, thesewo (ers cannot be releoa ted to oerD etual uncertai ntv. .l Vhile concerns of mun wt h I budqet cot-l I ) SN. J wp _24654 _2020 recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutorv obliqations or neqate equitable entitlements, Indeed, bureagcratiql i m itations ca n n ot tru m D the lesiti mate riqhts of workmen who have served continuouslv in de facto reqular roles for an extended leriod. h extent thev confine the Appellant Workmen to future dailv-waoe enqaoement without continuitv or r f h Hi hc tn t l] kwa s is hereb set side t followinq directions: I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire period of absence (from the date of termination until actual reinstatement) shall be counted for continuit v of service and all tb nefits such as seniora n ellqibilitv for Dromotions, if anv. III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their 16 SN. J $p 21651 1020 T actual reinstatement. The Responden: Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within thre< months from the date of their reinstatement' IV. The R.esoondent Emol ver ir d ire ed to in itiateafa ir and trans aren reo ul rizino the Aooellant Workr en within six tem ent, dulv months from the date of rei n sl considerinq the fact that thev h,a ,ep erformed oere nial municioal duties akin o Dermanent s. In Emol ver shall not imo se €r( ucational or if such oroc ural cri reouireme nts were n ver aD lied to the Appellant Workmen or to sim! arlv situated req ular emolovees in the Dast. -o the extent nctioned vacancies for su g h duties exist reouired, the ResDon den t .! molover shall exD ite all necessarv administr;l:ive ro e ses re not toe sure thes i ndefin i elv retained on ailv wa es contra rv to statuto ria ret actirr lv lonotame emo ( ,VeeS a reoular ization assessinq and eou able t J c

19. In view of the above, the appeal(;) filed bv the workmen are allowed, whereas the appe: (s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed."

12. The A ex Court in a iudq ment reoor t :d in (2O1 7)L SuDreme Court Case 148. in State of Pur1ab and others vs laqiit Sinqh and thers at Para s 54 ar !.1 I its sub-Daras ( 1)(2)(3), of the said iudqment observed e1 under: "S4 "The Full Bench of the High Court while adiudicating upon the above controversy had conclud('t, that temparary emptoyees were not entitled to the mintmurr' ,f the regular paY- scale, merely for the reason, that the acttv, ies carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were sit : lar. The full bench t7 SN, J \tP_24654 _2020 however, made two exceptions. Temporary employeest who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held entitted 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 wager, 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 all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2) But if dailv waoers ad hoc or contractual aDDointees are not aDDointed ao ainst reqular eir services are availed sanctioned Dosts and UOUS v- ttrith no I the Stete na breaks. b Gove rnment or its ins?rumentalities for a sufficient t o I ears s ch AI hoc or contractual aoDointees shall be entitled to mrntmu m of the reaular oav scale without anv that work of allowances on the assumDtion perennial nature is atrailable and havinq worked for created in such cateaory of persons. Their claim for o tim an I, if an ma seoaratelv in terms of l.eqa llv Dermissible scheme. (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 1O 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. scc 247 u m T h A x f o o10 9 een State of Karnataka and others v M.L.Kesari and others- in oarticular. oaras 4 to 9 reads as u nder:

4. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevt was rendered on 70.4.2006 (reoorted in 200 that case- a Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made 6 (4) SCC 1) 18 I.iN, J \\'p_2465.1 202t) ' without following the due process or the. rLttls relatinq to 'iLiriri-"rt aii not confer any right on the ppoinrees and ,Zlrit ,unnot direct their absorption, regul''t'zation or re' " their seruice permanent and the Hish Z;;;";";;;o, eo'ri- ,n exercise of jurisdiction under ArtiL-t: 226 of the clistitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regulanzation, or permanent continuance unless he recruitment had been done in a regular mannert in terms of the constitutional scheme; and ihat the courts mu t be careful in Litiring that they do not interfere unduly wtt I the economic ""iri"ig;^;ii "f iis affairs bv the State ol it.:..'' ttrumentalities' ;o, tina themselves to be instruments to facitit = the bypassing 'ol tii ,onttitutional and statutory mandates' 1.1 is Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual c' a daily-wage "iitiv:ii does not hive a legat right to.be t.ade permanent i,nlii n" had been appointed in terms of the r?t )vant rules or in ),dierence of Articles 14 and 16 of the ConstitLtion This Court however made one exception to the above t osition and the same is extracted below : , 796 i t, ! There mav be ys (not illeoal I NaravanaPDa ooa [7972 (7) s 507 ' duly oualified sts mioht have y e continued to 9 t without the ;- or of tribunals. -'he services of ,- considered on 5 settled bv this y and in the lioht f U ton th tr ;- to reoularize as sol such irreoularlv wo ed fort 1Ve ars or more under cover of t als and should oular rs cruitments are 5tnctioned oosts j t cases where da ilv vll ers are Governmer.l; t f Ind,4, t State n ao ne-ttme meas re, the AD ointed.w ha nctioned oosts but nol h further ensure that un erta ken to fill that reou ire to be te porarv e hose vacant led uD, olovees or o 19 wo 24654 SN. J -2020 now em loved. The oro within s months from this date. must be set i motion "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against ' regularization' enunciated in tJmadevi, 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. the concerned sts a dutv uDon n stru men (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against Sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualificatrons 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 of those irreoularlv ao ointed reoularize the seru who had served for more than ten vears without the benefit or oro tection of anv interillL orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure, Uma devi. ne-time measute must be set in directed that such decision motion ( rendered on 7O.4.2OOGl. 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 department or each instrumentality should undeftake 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 tribunals and subiect them to a process verificatton as to whether they are working aqainst vacant posts and possess the requisite quatification for the post and if so, regularize their services. 'hin six months from the date of e sA 20 SN. J sp 24654 2020

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in u-iud"ii, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/c't ;ual employees i.ii" - tiitl pending before Courts' Conseqt ently, several dipartments' and iistru mentatities did not corr' t rcnce the one' time regularization process, On the othet hand' some Governient departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several ett oloyees from ioisideration either on the groind that their calt s were pending ii ,orrs or due to sheer iversight. In such cii(umstances' the eiployees who were entitted to be considered t t terms of Para is' ot'n" decision in umadevi, witl not lose t rcir right to be considered for regularization, merely becau:;' the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases' or L"rurr" the six month period mentioned in pai 53 of Umadevi ii, erp,r"d. The one-time exercise should ct tsider all daily- iiqitianocttnose employees who h-a-d put n 10 years of ,oitinrou, service as on 1O.4'2006 witho tt availing the prot"rtion of anY interim orders of courts or ribunals' If any '"^p,loy", had held the one-time exercise in te' ns of para 53 of lJmadevi, but did not consider the cases of sonr employees who to the benefit of para 53 of lJmac\ vi, the emploYer i"r" concerned should consider their cases also, as t continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise till be concluded iity- *n"n all the employees who are entitlec :o be considered in ierms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so consider td' "rtitt"d u n f f n e 'ar, o r t in more L in oara 53 of dire o, a The o biect b hind the sa Umadev, ts two- fold' First is to ensure - hat those who 1:inuous service r t t anv n terim ort n without the Dro madevi was efore he tribunals vtew f rende d a D rure that the rv, ot -retpetuate the dep artments / instrument,alities do - daily-waoe/ad- ice o r for lono Der,'iods andt \ zn oeriodicallv hoc/cas ual t rer,- have served for reQularize them on the therebv defea no ri/ e constitutional latino tor tcruitment and tatuto of th dire ction is that all ADD intmen ten years as on Dersons who have worked for more at1 70.4.2006 (the date of dec ston ,n Uma e t Drot ection of anv in teri orde of an ccr rt or tribunal. in e reou ite 'uali ,ca tion, are vacant DOS entitled to be consi ered for reoula 'izati tn. The fact that orov ,ons The t e effe l,osse sstno n vea n 1 I 21 SN. J rYp 24654 2020 the emolover has not undertaken such exercise of onths of the decision in reoularization within six Umadevi or that such exe was undertaken onlv in reoard to a limited few. will not disentitle such emolovees. the rioht to be nsidered for reoula rization s aJ jh e b a n i in U. 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 Umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undeftaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 7 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years servrce 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. In the iudqment of the Apex Court in Nihal Sinqh and others v. State olPuniab reporLed in (LO13) 14 SeC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Specaal Police Officers appointed by the State, whose -l-- )2 SN, J \\r'_24654 2020 a ppella nts wages were paid by Banks at whose dis posal their services were made available' It held that th e mere fact were paid by the Bank did not render the that wages 'employees' of those Banks since the was made by the State ancl disciplinary appointment control vested with the State. It held that the: creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusivety within the authoraty of the Stat:, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but <:l rose to make appointments of persons creating contractual retationship, its action is arbitrary' It als ) refused to rr:tioned o sts ha ther we St rte to utilise tustification for th so there was of lar e t e th IDDel la nts for I held that "san o 2 not fall from bv a rea e the the State ha 'J of eed. Re fe rri n heaven" and that con scious ch orce o n the basis ofsome ratio I al assessment otoUm adevi, it held tha the aooell nts their initial before them were not ADDointment wa sn ot an 'irrequ Iar'ao orn ! rent as it had e in accord ance with the stattl orv orocedure arbitrarilv chose], n b 23 SN, J wp_24654 2O2O 51 and the Sta +a r atnrrarf ha haa f A to sa that th Fl, ar.a haif a nt t arl tn ha absorbed into the services of the State on Dermanent basis as, accordinq to it, their aDDointments were purelv temDorarv and not aoainst nv sanctioned Dosts created by the ltate. It was held that the iudqment in Umadevi cannot become a licence for exDloitation bv the State and its instrumentalities and neither the Government of Puniab nor those oublic sector Banks can continue such a practice inconsistent with their obliqation to function an accordance with the Constitution.

15. The iudqment of the Apex Court reported in 2015 SCC Online SC 1797 between B.Srinivasulu and others v Nellore Municipa! Corpotatiqn Bep.by its Commissioner, Nellore District, Andhra Pra sh and others, in particular paras 7 and 8 reads as under: .O. No.212 We find it difficult to acceDt the reasoninq adoDted bv the (7) UEbJaq!-The riqht pf the appellants to seek reqularization flows from th t ella n have been in service af the lltst lespgodent not onlv Drior to the ent to the issue of issuance of the s till today. The respondent Municipality being a statutory G body is obliged by the G.O. 272(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years o Th a z4 SN, J wp 24654-2020 without regularising the service of the appellant:; and continued to extract work from the appellants'

16. In the circumstances, refusing the beneti of the above 8. ientioned G.O. on the groiund thai tne appellt't ts approached the Tribunat belatedly, in our opinion, is not .ir stified' In the iiirui-st"nr"t, the appeat is allowed modifying t rc order under ipieat Ov directing that the appellants' se.rv|cet be regularised ii[n eftect from lhe date of their completing :heir five year continuous service as was laid down by this 1>urt in District Votie'cior/Cnairperson & Others vs. M L' Singh 3 ors' 2009 (8) SCC 480. DO r1 ed (2015) 8 In mark nt RaivStateofB ihar 265. the Suoreme Court held that ''r re objective behind the exception carved out in this case vas to permit regutarization of such appointment, which tre irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointmenl s, which are I securiw of irregutar but not illegal, and toe nSU fl I'ed the State fth sep e rson 5 who had set Go ernment and thei r instru menta !atres for I rore than ten In that case, em olovee was worki nr lor 29 vears. ve ars". Thisde r sron aooroves earlier view I lxpressed in .K rre racted a bove. L7. In 4 c 223 m r vlew wa Pr s4l reported in akenbv the SUD reme court and it w as heldasf ollo s 75 SN, J |tP_24654_2020 "47... . In view of the cateoorical findina of fact on the relevant contentious issue that the resDondent emolovees have continued in their se for more than 7O vears continuouslv therefore, the leoal orinciple laid down bv this Court in Umadevi case (State of Kamataka v Umadevi (2O06) 4 SCC 7 : 2OO6 SCC (L&SI 73r at oara 53 souarelv aoolies to the Dresent cases. The Division Bench of the Hish Court has riqhtlv held that the resoondent emolovees are entitled for the relief, the same cannot be interfered with bv this Court."

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.276()2 of 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 of 2023 dated 1O.1O,2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.

19. The iudqment of the Aoex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others reoorted inAIR 2O2O Su reme Court 3969 and in oarticular oara Nos.lOO and 101 held as follows: " 100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Artrcle 226 of the Constrtution 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 ower whe has failed to exercise or has wronolv exercised ent or h rt v t 16 SN, J rr p_24654 2020 r Go L or a rule, or ! ts exercised r irrelevant vernm ent or t fide, or ol f t olicv decis ion of the ch disc retton mala co nsad rati n, 101. In all such cases, the High Court must i ;s-ue a writ of ,*auaut and give directions to compel 1l:rformance in un uppropaiute and lawful manner of t le discretion conf"itlO upon the Government or a public ii rthority "

20. The Divisi o Be ch f this Court i ludq ment d o 20 s of 20L2 whileuDholdin N 437 da w.A Nos.782 f:01 a q the Jud qm ent dat( t08 .o9.2 10 of2 OO7 a nd C.C. t'l ).48 of 2 o8 8 4 sen, as unde r "Further, it is manifest from the materlal or record that the services of the similarly placed persons who aP'1 roached the law Corata *"t" regularized. The appellant-Corpo- tion also issued ,uiiort office 6rders/circu la rs dated 20 12 1) l9' 11'09'1992' 6O.fO.ZOOZ and latest being 4 7 2009 for egularlzation of ."iu"f/iontt".t employees, Itls also to be see: that Section 25- ID Act prohibits unfair labour practic(' rv any employer i;iih" or-workman. As can be seen from the factua scenario of the aur"a on hand, engaging the respondents fo-such a long and ioniinrort perioO or time on casual basis rs r )thing but unfair LUor. pru.ii." attracting the provrsrons of S::tion 25-T of the tO ect.'fne learned Singte -luOqe while relyinq on the decisions of tft" np"* Court, rightiy netd inat the respor lents are entitled io i"luf'uiirution as directed in the impugne I orders' as the tuurnJO single Judge considered all the aspect ' of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in o.l cortsidered view does not warrant interference in these appeai ' "

21. Th Division Ben ch of this Cou i1 its J udo ent a 2 t7 a .P.N 2 2t7 of 20L7 27 SN. J !,P_24651_2020 in 2O1 2 ALD a 2 t ara n r 1 observed as under:- " 16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.7994, were ln existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time a bsorption/reg u la rization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 oF 1994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgmenf in Uma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning reg u la rization/a bsorption exist. 22.4.L994. do not whittle down the width and the o.M N .212 fore Act 2 f1 4L a d in Man ula Bashini'. tr a ctor of th <cr rarf hv I^r^ra' SuDreme cou su ra I in Para 53 of its iudoment in Uma Devi's It is f h respondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212. dated 22.4.1994. to denv reoularization to ih6 criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the iu oment in Urna Devi's ca ho have GI btcfari mt jt 6A c.+;cfiad ( su ora ). n^i n s h t t t

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27,6,20L7, in OA No.1442 of 2O1,4. on rhe file of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ Detition is allowed with the di ection to the resDondents to consider reqularisation of the services of r InsDectors and aDDoint them subiect to their satisfvinq titioners a atn t xi ti h n Para N .53 Uma Deyi's case (suora). This orocess must be comoleted m the da two months fr f this order." 28 SN.,I \!p _24651 2020

22. The Division Bench of thi court in I s Judoment inlof2O 19 d 2L. .2020 assed in I.A.Nos.l ot 2O2l ) d and W.P.No. 3057 of 2019 reDorted in 2o20 4)ALD oaoe 379 at Daras 45.48 and oara 5 observe das l nder:- "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have I len working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almo; (30) years of service by now, They have been given minimun 'ime-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously ' rorking without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till da e, known whv t 48. Itisn nU d tr esD o r dent has not s: (suora), as vi's c ! undertaken a exDlai ned in M.L. Kesari's case (suo ra) an rf dailv waoe one-ti me exerci se of ore oarino th emol ovees who had work d for mor - :en ( 1O) vears ribunal sason with ut the in rvention of the Courts 10.4. 006 and subiect them to a Drocess vg rif ication as to whether thev are workino aqainst va( ,!' nt Dosts and isite qualifications for theo sts, and if so, 1s I e ( rize their se rces. 50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allorve j the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st rcs6 cndent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of ervices on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrarl' 3nd violative of Articles 14, 16 and 2l of the Constitutrt I of Indra; the resoond ents are directed to reoula rizeor r_ one-time basis the petitioners ices from the date each ot oetiti oners aqes from the lete 10 vears of se rvlce on dailv r c :v shal! not be initial dates of their apDointment. But. t ! (ercise shall be entitled to anv monetarv relief . The said, f done within two (2 weeks from the d. copv of the order." of rec !-

23. This ourt oDanes that in the respondents fai ed to di harqe their dutI ore s :nt in examln ca e, the 29 SN, J w]16s1_2O2L the request of the petitioner for reqularization of oetitioner's services, who is workinq as full time sweeoer h r consider her r uest to treat the tem ora f the eti ioner in the last sweeper as reqular one for all purposes bv qrantinq last orade oav with Deriodical increme nt revise from time to time from the date of aooointment of the oetitioner, in accordance to law.

24. This Court oDines that petitioner is entitled for n r f ion of etationer's case for r nt r n Wr P ntnvl w fth f h A xCo tn varrous ud me (referred to and extracted above ) and the view of the n h f hi Co f in the Jud ments r r and extracted above.

25. Takinq into c ns idera tio n : - 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 No.3. 30 s\. I \!t 11651 1020 c) The observations of the Apex Court in he various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: i)(202o) l scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 12o9 (v) (2017) l Scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9)sCC247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (201s) 8 ScC 26s (x) (2014) 7 sCC223 (xa) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O SuPreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2oo6) 4 SCc 1 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD Page 282 (xvi) 2O20(4)ALD Page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this 'lourt dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1o and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment datel 08.09'2OrO passed in W.P.No.24377 ol 2OO7 and C.C.l\o'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 of 2O1) (referred to and extracted above), 3l SN. J \\,p 24654 2O2O f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 of zOLg (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 petitioner is directed to Dut-forth the claim of the Detitioner for reqularization of petitioner's services, and also the claim of the petitioner to treat the temporarv services of the petitioner in the last orade oost of Sweeoer as reqular one for all purooses bv qrantinq last qrade pav with riod ica rncremen revised from time to time date of aDDointment of the oetitioner and all conseouential benefits, dulv enclosinq all the relevant e ln su rt of etitioner's case t the present wrat petition, within a period of one (O1) week r h r I of he r r h resDondents shall examine and consider the same in accordance to law, in confor tv with o rt nct D les of natural iustice bv orovidinq an opportuni t of Dersonal hearino to 32 s\.l \vp 2465,1 2020 tita ner o r e maD vi's b 6 ! : suDreme 'scc Paqe L. the iud ment Das din w.P. No.24377 o f 00 2 date d

08. 09.201 O reDo rted i 20LL (1) LD, P qe 34 andas con firmed in W .No.7 82 of o10 dated o.o( .2O13, and also as er Divrslon Be

19. 09.20 17 Da ssed in W. nch Judoment of this .!:ourt dated .No .272L7 ot2 o7 reDo ed tn 20 18(2)ALD D lud oment aoe 282 and also the Divi ;ion Bench pa ssed in ,..o4.2 o2( t of this Court d ted I.A.N os.1 of 2O2O reported finali in1 ot 2OL9in w.P.No .23 t57 of 2O1 9 in 2O2o(4)A LD DAoe 37 whi h rrd atta ined tv. within a Deriod of four ( 4) weeksf m the date rder, dulv ta kinq into eceiot of a coov of f ) ( consr deratao n the observations a d the aw ! rid down bv the Apex Co extracte urt in the va rious iudqm ents (re rred to and d above ). andin Da rticular, Dara 11o.53 of the se' of State of he Ao xCo rt in the I IU doment oft Kar nataka v. Uma Devi and dulv mr lunl ate decision to he oetit oner. H wever, therr: shall be no ord r as JJ SN. J wp 24654 2020 Miscellaneous petitions, iF any, pending in this Writ Petition, sha ll stand closed. I That Rule Nisi has been made a6solute as above Witness THE HON'BLETHE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH, THURSDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE Sd/-A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR AS STANT REGIST //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER One fair copy to THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE S ALLI NANDA (For Her Lordship's Kind Perusal) To, 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 Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

5. The District Collector, (Panchayats) and Chairman of Selection Committee, 6 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Prla Parishad, Nalgonda 7. One CC to SRl. CH. GANESH, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES ll ,High Court for the State of Telangana 9 Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV ,High Court for the 10 One CC to SRl. KISHORE RAO PUSKURU, SC FOR TS ZILLA State of Telangana. [OUT] PARISHADS[OPUC] 1 1 . Two CD Copies BM PMK \(r CC TODAY ,, ' Si;i r ttLt 2[?5 ).- o ) ? a * HIGH COURT DATED:31 10712025 ORDER WP.No.24654 of 2020 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETTTION WTTIIOUT COSTS ,L' f:' t'