The High Court · 2025

Judgment

5. The State of Telangana , rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayathraj Department, Telanqana Secretariat, Hyderabad. Th6 State oi Telai'6ana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. Th6 District Collector and Chairman of Selection Committee and Minimum Wages Committee, Karimnagar District. The- Zilla Praja Parishad, Karimnagar District, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer. The tvlandal Parishad Development Officer, Ganneruvaram Mandal' Karimnagar District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not treating the services of petitioner as regular one in last grade post for working from several long years on full time even not paying legitimate wages of Full Time Sweeper' as per appointment order dated.13.06.1985, as unjust, unfair, totally arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 16,21, 39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of our Constitution in denying legitimate living wages to petitioner by not implementing Section 13 and 15 of Minimum Wages Act, '1948 and provisions of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and Govt. Orders from time to time, to pay living wages to petitioner and prays to direct the Respondents herein to treat lhe services of the petitioner as regular one in last grade post from the date of initial appoinl .rent by applying the decision and principle laid by the Hon'bleApex Court in th€ ;ase of Prem Singh Vs State of U.P. (2019 (1) SCC 5'16) and Division Bench ot :his Hon'bleCourt rn WP No 33936 of 2011 and Batch Cases dated 021O5/2O1a (2020 (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) followed by decision of the Hon'bleHigh Court of A ,. in W.A.No.483 of 2021 daled 0510812021 based on principle laid by lhe Hon t teSupreme Court in C.A. No. 1254 of 2018 Apex Court, dated 2310312018 1( reckon contingent services of petitioner for computation of qualifying service : grant of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits by releasing cons:quential monetary benefits in the last grade post including periodical increme r ls, as revised from time to time with '10Opercent compensation as per principle I d by Apex Court in the case of Union of lndia Vs. Avtar Chand in C.A.No. 34 -3415 of 2010 and Batch Cases dated 191021201 I (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by a:.rlyinq the aforesaid principles and decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Drvir on Benches under Article 141 of our Constitution by this Hon'ble Court in the cas :) of petitioner lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ( i rlumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court 'nay be pleased to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner in service by paying on par wilh regularly engaged last grade employees along with perio::al increments as revised from time to time as per the orders granted in l.A. Ntr . 1 of 2018 in. Wp No. 38763 of 2018 dated 30/10/2018 in simitarly situated cas: Forthwith Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. CH GANESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: AGP FOR SERVICEIi I Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4&5: SRI PRADEEP REDI) f KATTA, SC The Court made the following: ORDER .-, _/ ,,. J SN,J $p 28416 2021 THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA RIT PE o.2847 F2 o RDER: Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 and 5.

2. The o titioner a oo ched the Court seekinq praver as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not treating the services of petitioner as regular one in last grade post for working from several long years on full time even not paying legitimate wages of Full Time Sweeper, as per appointment order dated 13.06.1995, as unjust, unfair, totally arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 76,2L,39 (d),43 & 300 (A) of our Constitution in denying legitimate living wages to petitioner by not implementing Section 13 and 15 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and provisions of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and Govt. Orders from time to time, to pay living wages to petitioner and prays to direct the Respondents herein to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in last grade post from the date of initial appointment by applying the decision and principle laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of prem Singh Vs State of U.P. (2019 (1) SCC 516) and Division Bench of this Hon,bte Court in WP No 33936 of 2011 and Batch Cases dated 4 SN,J \p 28,176 2022

02.05.2018 (2O2O (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) fottowe r of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in W.A.No. dated 05.08.2021 based on principle laid by Supreme Court in C.A. No. 1254 of 2018 Apex 23.03.2018 to reckon contingent services of I computation of qualifying service to grant of per: and other retirement benefits by releasing c monetary benefits in the last grade post includi increments, as revised from time to me compensation as per principle laid by Apex Cou- of Union of India Vs. Avtar Chand in C.A.No. l 2010 & Batch cases dated 19.02.2019 (ALD 3 o1 by applying the aforesaid principles and dec: Hon'ble Apex Court & Division Benches under,\ our Constitution by this Hon'ble Court in the casr: and pass.. .. . " by decision a3 of 2O27 -he Hon'ble louft, dated :rtitioner for on, g ratu ity rnsequential g periodical with 100o/o in the case 116-3445 of r019 sc 32) ions of the ticle 141 of )f petitione r ? la arned coun n e half of oetitioner olacinq reliance on the averment:i .made in the affidavit filed in suooort of the Dresent - utt--pellEan pertaininq in Darticular to the services 'endered bv Detitioner with the sDondents herein for nore than a decade contends that the oetitioner is en t tlcd_isr$c as ra ed for in sent writ ,l . PERUSED T E RECORD:- DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-

4. Learned counsel aooear nq on br: ralf of the Detitaoner ubmits that the subi ect issue irr the Dresent case ts sou arelv covered bv the order of th is Court dated 5 SN,J wp 28476-2022 o o1 a w N 4 o o 2011 ( 1) AL D, Paqe 234 a rmed in W. A.No .782 of 20Lo.dated 10.o 6.20 13a nd al oorder, ated 19. 9.20 77 s sse inW P.N .27 7 2 1 o 1 2 LD Pa qe282and ai othe order, dated 21.O4.20 2Oo ssed tn W.P.No.230 57 ot 201 reDorted tn 2020( 4) ALD Pa qe3 79. ea rn n s N 4 e lon er s t- bm s nad res d s a t e b alf of th rrev n of th t itP iti h h retn s e o h eti on can ot c o on en e nin n r va nce of itio r dh c Deti tion er tn the resent Wit oetition can n tbe q ra nted f rb an m can et nd heo etitioner mav be n r he eun era sso oht u orth h e n s r VA e c d t f hinth r w e d d u eiDt of the said reD resen tion, the resDon den would -l I 6 SN,J \vp 23,176 2022 co n sid r the same in accordan to lew ithin a reaso na bl e oeriod. 6 Learned couns el aoo ea rinq on behalf ol :he petitio ner does not disDute the said subm ission made v the !e a rned standin q counsel aooearinq on behalf of tr 3 resDo n dent t No.4

7. The Aoex Court in the iudqment reportrl lin 20 1 scc (L&S) in Prem Sinoh v State of Uttar' Pradesh and others, at oara 36 held as u nder:

"36. There are some of the employees who har, regularized in spite of having rendered the serv 40 or more years whereas they have been supe As they have worked in the work-charged es., not against any particular project, their service have been regularized under the Government and even as per the decision of this Court i Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court decision has laid down that in case services rendered for more than ten years without the : Court's order, as one-time measure, the; regularized of such employees. In the facts ()t those employees who have worked for ten ye,t should have been regularized. It would not be regulate them for consrderation of regularizatic r have been regularized, we direct that their s treated as a regular one. However, it is mad,: they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues ot in wages had they been continued in servirr before attaining the age of superannuation. Tlr entitled to receive the pension as if they hal .l not been :es for 30- -annuated. blishment, .; ought to lstructions 'r State of lthe said rave been ,ver of the ,rvices be the case, s oT more proper to as oth ers ,:rvices be clear that d ifference regularly y sha Il be ere tired il servt ces rendered bv them rioht from the dav thel entered m n m n 7 SN,J \vp 28476 2022 the work-charoed establishment shall be counted as oualifvino service for Duroose of oension."

8. The Aoex Court in the case of Dharwa d District PWD Literate Dailv Waqe Emolovees Associ atlon Vs. State of Karnataka reoorted in 1990(2) SCC Paoe 39 6 laid orinciole that the Sta should not keeD a oerson i temDorarv or adhoc service for lonq period a nd have to treat such persons as reoular one.

9. Para No.53 of the of the iudqment of the Apex Court in the State of Karnataka and others Vs. U madevi, dated 10.o4.2OOG reoorted in (2006)4SCC1is extracted hereu nder: - u v "53. One asoect needs to be clarified. There mav be cases where irreqular appointments (not illeqal 1 scR 128 as ex lained in a 1972 1 R.N. SCC 4091 and B.N. Naoaraian 11979 (4) SCC 5O7'l and referred to in oara 15 above. of ulv oualified persons in dulv sanctione d vacant Dosts miqht have been made nd the emolovees have continued to work for t n vears or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of reqularization of the services of such emolov ees mav have to be considered on merits in the lioht of the orincioles settledbV this Court in the vereferred to and in the liqht of this cases a the Un ion of Indaa, the iudqment. In thatco nte State Governm e inslru_EcnlaliEjcs nts and thei r I I s w ure the h nct ne vew rk t to re s not nde Iar I l o e I w I -it SN,J sn_2847(, 2022 a one-time 'aPDoanted, ore in dulv of he .ensure that o fill those be filled uP' lailv waq ers -rst be setin fth A xC rt d The

10. re ortedin 2024 LawSuit(sc) 1209 inl ao of India and others, and oth ers v. Un erl 2O.1

2.20 24. e e--Ad!a-a-od 'he relevant a r h s.12 13 24 6 7a 2 l 1erxlIaStCd hereu nder: "12. Despite being labelled as "part workers,i the appellants performed essential tasks on a daily and contrr basis over extensive periods, rangingt over a decade to nearly two decades' engagement was not sporadic or temF in naiure, instead, it was recurrent, r(! and akin to the responsibilities tyl associated with sanctioned posts' Mort the respondents did not engage any personnel for these tasks durint; ippellants tenure, underscoring indispensable nature of their work' -time :hese Their lular, ically over, b !a o o Th 13. hes wer n w s a t n nature of these duties o r nde t.: (: ; ! a The rr: e f necessitates 'it, as y the tal to u rring 9 SN,] ttp_28476-2022 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 in h e rent need For these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional. 24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences oF misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby 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 hiohlio ts the iudiciarv's role in rectifvi nq such misc assifications a nd en urinq that workers receiv fa ir 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" '-" -1 I r0 SN.J up_28416 2022 appoint I ents. " irregu lar" cateq orica llv held that em Iove,3; ln It 3 qdin irreq ular aDDoin tments, wh o were enoa, dulv sa n ction ed Dosts and had s,r contin uouslv for more than ten vears be considered for reoularization as a_ one- time measure. However, the laudable inll nt of the judgment is being subverted when insti: rtions rely on its dicta to indiscrim inately reje( claims of employees, even in cases wher l th eir appointments are not illegal, but merelv adherence to procedural formalities. Govet't departments often cite the judgment in Ur t Devi (supra) to argue that no vested ritll regularization exists for temporary emp t yees, judgment's : overlooking the 'l p licit on is acknowledgment of cases where regulariz; I appropriate. This selective aoolication d ! :ivelv the iudoment' soirit an DUTDOSe, effe, wea ontztnq I aoainst molovees wh<t have rendered in disoensab e servl ces _ . over deca des.

27. In light of these considerations, opinion, it is imperative for gover departments to lead by example in provid t and stable employment. Engaging workers temporary basis for extended periods, es: when their roles are integral to the organir functioning, not only contravenes interrr' labour standards but also exposes the orgart to legal challenges and undermines emg morale. By ensuring fair emPlct practices, government institutions reduce the burden of unnecessary !ititl promote job securitY, and uPhol'J principtes of justice and fairness thal are meant to embodY. This approach with international standards and !;' posative precedent for the private set: follow, thereby contributing to the c betterment of labour practices in the c<r r our ,ment g fa ir on a :cially rtio n's tion a I zation rtion, rligns :ts a or to vera ll r ntry. - SN,J wP_28416 2022

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 .lO.2O tB are quashed ; The aDDella nts sh ll be ta ken r ed ith. la nt r a f' ii. e w rked e f oda d would be counted for reti ral ben efits." h ven e ba k a e r st- 11, Th d ed in 2 to the A xC I s 1 4in" HRIP L AND NOTH 31 d t.2 v AGA NI ZIAB n a Dara Nos.1 5to19 are e s racted hereun der: IS ma ifest that the Ao el la nt Work "15. It conti n u ou slv rende red their servlces over several e Eve n if certaln mu er roll were of Drod uced in full. the Emolo ver's fa ilure to furni such records- e labour o well-established tim s an n m -all w an u nder a s s \. --' I t2 SN,J \\p 284',76 -2022 - iurisotudence. fndian labour law stror qly disfavors perpetual daily-waqe or contractual en laqements in circumstances where the work is t gg1111sq!_j1l nature. Morallv and leoallv, workel ; who fulfil ono orno m untct oal reouirements ve, r - after vear cannot be dismissed summarilv as_ disoensable particularly in the absence of a qenui re contractor aqreement. At this juncture, it would b€ ,rppropriate to recall the broader critique of indefini-, "temporary" employment practices as done by a recer I judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India r the following paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse of tempora y employment contracts, as exemplified in this cr:;e, reflects a broader systemic issue that ad r rrsely affects workers' rights and job security. I r the private sector, the rise of the gig economy nas led to an increase in precarious employment 3rrangements, often characterized by lack of benefi .: , job security, and fair treatment. Such practic: have been criticized for exploiting workers ar ( undermining labour standards. Government institu: )ns, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairn: .,s and justice, bear an even greater responsibility o avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse lf temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detr mental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concernlng precedent that can erode p rblic trust in governmental operations.

25. It is a disconcerting reality tl at temporary employees, particularly in governmr: t institutions, often face multifaceted forms of expl)itation. While the foundational purpose of temporar./ :ontracts may have been to address short-term or :;, asonal needs, r3 SN,J \\p 28416 2022 e r w n I al ,, ev r curr "Te ork ha the un bell d n ml or h req u DE orm !nq !h^ey lave increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade tong-term obtijations owed .to employees. These praclices maniiest in several ways: o Misu n e ndi t e "con a mDora rv" Label :E olovees n f e em o s. deorives workers of and ben e st at misclassifica diqnitv emplov esare entitled to, d esDa identical ta sks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, ui.u"n in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state oF constant insecurity, regardiess 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, lreating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, elfectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. fi,ris pr"actile not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonsirates 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 l4 SN.J \\p 284't6 2022 decades. This lack of social security : Jbjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. "

16. The High Court did acknowledge tl e Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. )onsequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wag:,; with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regret: bly, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant v'orkmen were left in a marginally improved yet still urt:rtain status. While the High Court recognized the impcr.ance of their work and hinted at eventual regularizatic'r , it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningf .rl back wages commensurate with the degree of statr.ory violation evident on record. L7. In light of these considerations, tt e Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Worknt:n stands in violation of the most basic labour law princ I les. Once it is established that their services were ternri rated without adhering to Sectlons 6E and 6N of the l.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev wer3 enqa qed in esse ntial. oerennial duties, the work s r-s-te-n-[-9!-bc releqated to DerDetual uncerta intv, Wl ile concerns comtr i3!ec--!ui!h ofm unicioal b doet and recru Itment ru les merit consideration. I lch concerns do not absolve the EmDlover of statutc I v obliqations orn eoate eoui Indeed rons cannot trumD t re leqitimate cratic limita bu rea u entitle mer I - l5 fw km wh ri h de facto reqular rol es oranext AV ded Defl SN,J wP _284',1 6 _2022 n e t rder of th Hioh Cou e

18. The tmDu qned e meaninoful back wa qes, is here bv set aside with the f I wtn dir tw m f n wt h ut tof tu to the a n a 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 illegat. All oid"r, 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 ill purposes, including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate th e Appellant Workmen in their res pective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks fro m the date of this judgment. from ed eof tn tion nti! c etr ntir u n m n of servi e n n Ior r iJ III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entiUed to 50% of the back'wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three montiis from the date of their reinstatement. I The tnt iate a fair n c dt tran sDare t orocess --- :1 I l6 SN.] \tp 28476 2022 .! o - a I assess lno requla ' z tion lmDos ria retroa ctivl:v reo u la riz tn the A DD ella nt workrr, en within stx mo nths fromthed ate of r inst tement, dulv co n sidertn o the fact that thev h: re Derfor ed Der nnial m uniciDal duties kin o Dermanent oos s. In e Emo lover shall not jee, ucationa I or proced ural cri r ied to the r ADD el !a nt Workmen or to simi r rlv situ ated reqular emDlovees an the Dast. I I the extent that sanction ed vacanc s for suc duties exist or are reout red, the esDondent I nplover shall exDedite all necessa rv ad ministra VE DTO cesses to.ensure these lonotime emolcl ees are not indefinitelv retained on dailv wao-e i_gsilE_rJ_tA statu torv and eouitable norms. 19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal, Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed.,, filed by the ) filed by the ! : L I L2, The Apex Court in a iudqment reporte,J in (2O1 su D reme Court Cases 148. in State of P u niar ) d other VS Jaoi it sinqh a nd othe rs at Pa as 54 nd .! :s sub-oaras ( 1 )( 2)t3 ). of the said iud ment b served asr! Usi 1 "54 "Ihe Full Bench of the High Court, w\,te adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, i\at temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of t rc regular pay_ scale, merely for the reason, that the activities cariied on by daily-wagers and regular employees were simila - The fu benih however, made two exceptions. Temporary em[ t .yees, who fett in either of the,two exceptions, were held entitl d to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular c,nptoyeeZ. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the Htttt Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder: _ t7 SN.J wp_28476_2022 "(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 a other etigible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regutar pay scale from the date of engagement. o u 'alitie aDDOt nted aoa inst if da intees are not Q) AD sanctioned oosts and their serutces are av, cont,nuouslw with notional brea ks- ad hoc or contra ctual v the Sfa fe a lonq oeriod i.e. for 7 O vea rs, suc.'h dailv gaqe hoc or con a wanceson the a umDtion that work of Derennial na ture is av,ailable and havinowo such lono oeriod of time. an eouitable riaht is ted in uch cateoorv f oerso,rs. Their claim for c reo larizatio .ifan considered m ctual a Dointe shall been mav h ve to in ter, ft, w, I (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 entiued to arrears for a period of three years and two months.,,

13. The iudoment of the oex Court reDort d in 2O1 o(9) scc 247 b tween: Stat ers v aras 4to9re ads as M.L.Kesari and others, in Darticula I fKa rn taka and oth e under:

4. The decision in State of Karna taka v. U.madevi was rendered on 10.4.2006 (reDorted in 2006 G) SCC 1) In that case, a Constitution Bench of thi's Court held that appointments made without follo wing the due process or the rules retating to did not confer any right on the appointees and appointment courts 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 ordinarilv issue directions for absorption, t8 SN,J \vp-28476 2022 regularization, or permanent continuance unle:; had been done in a regular manner, ii constitutional scheme; and that the courts nt ensuring that they do not inteiere unduly v,, arrangement of its affairs by the State or its nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilit, of the constitutional and statutory mandates. 1 held that a temporary, contractual, casual employee does not have a legal right to be t unless he had been appointed in terms of the r= adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Consttt however made one exception to the above t same is extracted below : the recruitment terms of the 'st be careful in h the economic 'tstru menta lities, te the bypassing )is Court further :r a daily-wage )ade permanent evant rules or in ,tion. This Cou rt osition and the a a a 128 5 abo in the referred "53. One asoect needs to be clarifie,I There ma aDDOtn 7967 7 R.m. scc 409 I and B.N. Naoa ere irreoular a Dointmet, s ( not illesal ents) as exolain ed in S.ll Narava na Doa >pa f 7972 (1) ian [797 G) SCC sOTt tl dulv oualified Dersons in dulv sanctioned vacant p2 ;ts might have been made and the emo vees hart I continued to work for ten rs or more bu without the intervention of orders of the courts , tr of tribunals. The o uestion of reou rization of lte services of to be :onsidered on -suc,h ern Dlo ve mav ha le -iettleC-hyLhis Court in the cases abovereferred to nd in the lioht of this iudqment. In tha context .the Union of the State Go and their India, rnment instrumentalities should take steps t-, iedularize as a one-ti e measure. the services of 5 Lch irreoularly appointed, who have worked for ten_ in dulv sanctioned oosb bu not uoder cover of rs of the courts or of tribuna s and should o further ensure that re ular te.:.!t!!tfie s----ale ll those vac,'ant sa ken to ! ctioned posts reouire to be filled D. tn cases where tem Dora rv emolovees or dailv wa ,ts are beino now emoloved. The orocess must b2 set in mo tion within six months from this date. .... ars or mo "5. It is evident from the above that thert is an exception to the general principles against 'regularizatio ,' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled . 19 SN,J wp.28476 2022 (i) The emptoyee concerned shourd have worked for 7o years or more in duly sanctioned Dost without the beneii oi protection of the interim order of anv court or tribunal. i;;;u, words, the State Government or its .instrumentiitf in"ri'iir. emptoyed the emptoyee and continued nii -in-' ,i"ii'J viuntarity ana ccntinuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be i egal, even if irregurar. where .the appoiitmenti not made or continued against sanctio.ned or ii"i" ' tn" persons appointed do not possess tne qyscrr.tei.irjiii quatifications, the appointments will be considered to Oe iiiegai. dut where the person e.mproyed possessed the prescribed - jiaiiications ana was working against sanctioned posts, but nli i..n selected yir!.olt undergoing the process of open ,o-iitiiir" setection, such appointments are considered to'0. ir*jufur.'"" vl ca l G ve m nt or in tru en ti requlaflze the se e olo u on th 'posts -are d a n u e o n t co rts or d motion wit,hin ( a a b a s a e- srx mon ths from on 70.4.20oil. s of those , f o e- m m SU I ularlv ADD orn ted ante n vea ,Fs e of a t o t theda teo f its decision e

6. The term 'one-time measure, has to be understood in its proper perspective. This .would norma y mean-that after the decision in tJmadevi, each departm"nt L, iuii' hstrumentatity should undertake a one_time'ururriJu uid-li.p"r-" " tirt or utt casual, dairy-waqe or ad hoc.emproyees *n[ n-J*'been working f3y, mory than ten years without tiu irtiiliiii Zr courts ana tribunals .and subject them to a process verification as to \!.rl?., they are working against va'cant posis-ani'possess tne requisite qualification for the port uri if- ,i, -r.|unrire services.

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daity^wageyia_niiii"i"t employees were stilt pendina before Couiis. coni"iiiiuv, severat d.epartments and iistru menta tities did not commence the one_ t!.1^-11e-utlriytion process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumenta tities unidertook the -,1 l.l 20 SN,J \rp 284'76_2022 one-time exercise excluding several (l consideration either on the ground that their ca: in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such ci, employees who were entitled to be consideretl 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose considered for regularization, merely becau: exercise was completed without considerint because the six month period mentioned in pet has expired. The one-time exercise should ct wage/adhoc/those employees who had put continuous service as on 10.4.2006 with t protection of any interim orders of cou rts or employer had held the one-time exercise in ter Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of son\ were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umac't concerned should consider their cases also, as the one-time exercise. The one time exercise I only when all the employees who are entitled in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so conside,', ,tployees from es were pending :umstances, the in terms of Para ,\eir right to be ? the one-time their cases, or t 53 of Umadevi nsider all daily- 'n 10 years of !t availing the 'ribunals. If any t'ts of para 53 of employees who vi, the employer I continuation of ,ill be concluded t) be considered d. u ularize them on eir lon D2'rtme ered for Second is to e-s ts/in rumental iti' do not Dractice of emolo vtnq Dersons on oc casual n

8. The o biect behind the sai, direction in oara 53 of Is two- fold. First is to ensure t tat those who Umadevi rs of con!i.nuous service have ouf tn mote than ten without the Drotection of an interim ord e E-oI-seurts--ar tribuna Is. before the date of decision iu Umadevi was tn in view of ssre__jh4__jhe D 2rDetuate the r 'ailv-waqe / ad- '-., Deriodicallv e oroun d that thev ate served for more than ten vears, therebv defeatino thc .constitutional or statu rv Drovisions telatino to ret 'ruitment and dDDO,n tment. The true effect of the dire,: ion is that all oersons who have worked for more than t,;n__yCAfS_AE-on t'i) without the 7 I r of anv coui or tribunal, in Drotection of anv interim o vacant oosts, oossessins the reouisite o,l tlification. are L, The fact that the emolover has not unde 'aken suc t exercise of 1 2 decision in Umadevi or that such e'xerctse was und,= '121r.n onlV in reoard to a limited few. will not ,T sentitle such emolovees, the riohtto he ao sidered for reqularization d for re ulart rization of decI o6 th titled h a- 2l SN,J \\p,28476 2022 in terms of th above directions in Umadev as a one-time measure.

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

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of 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/casua l/ad -hoc employeei serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.

14. In the iudoment of the Dex Court in Nihal Sinqh ndo hers v, Sta fP n r o tn 2 1 L4 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It held that the mere fact 1 i i l 22 SN,J \yp 28176 2022 that wages were paid by the Bank did r(,t render the appellants 'employees' of those Bankr since the appointment was made by the State arrl disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that thr creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authority of the Sta e, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but ,: rose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its actaon is arbitrary. It al:5 r refused to accept the defence that there were no sarl:tioned posts and so there was i stificatio n for the Sl; te to utilise service of larqe nu mber of oeople like the i ppellants for decades. Ithe ld that "sanctioned oosts do not fall from heaven" and that the State has to creatr them bva conscious choice on the basis of some ration; I assessm ent . Referrino to Umadevi. it held that Il re aooellants of ne before them were ot arbitrarilv chosen L h aoD ointment was not an'irreoula r'aooointrn as it had been made in acco ance with the statut(! v orocedure prescribed under the Police Act, 1861. af d the State ca n not be heard to s v that thev are not ,r lgEled_te_!c 23 SN,J \vp 28476 2022 bsorbed into the services f the n r to it their a ointments were urel tempofary rrd not aqainst anv sanctioned posts created bv the State. It was held that the iudqment in Umadevi cann ot become a licence for exoloitation bv the State and ts instr umentalit es and neither the Government of Puniab nor those public sector Banks can continue such a oractice inconsistent with their oblioation to function in accordance with the Constitution.

15. The iudqment of the Apex Court reported in 2015 SCC Online SC L797 between B.Srinivasulu and others v Nellore Municipal Corporation Rep.bv its Commissioner, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh and others, in particular Daras 7 and 8 reads as under: We find it difficult to acceDt the reasoninq adoDted bv the (7) Hiqh Court. The riqht of the a Dellants to seek reaularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994. The oppellant have bee n in service of the first resoondent not onlv Drior to the issuance of the said G.O but even subseouent to the issue of The respondent Municipality being a statutory G, 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. B. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is nor justified. In the \.. .-._-r:. r., a^ SN,J \fp 284't6]022 - circumstances, the appeat is allowed modifying t'e order under appeal by directing that the appetlants' service; be regularised with effect from the date of their completinq 'heir five year continuous service as was laid down by this l turt in District Cottector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh 9 Ors' 2009 (8) scc 480. In Amar kant Rai v State of Bihar reDot ed (2 1s) 8 16. scc 265. the Suoreme Court held that '-f re objective behind the exception carved out in this case rl'as to permit regularization of such appointment, which rre irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointment ;, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensur€ securitv of EMDIOvment of those oers ns who had ser ed the State 1 Governm ent and their instru mentalitie s for r ore than te n ! Years". In that case, em olove e was workinc r f!L2-9-veaE-. This decision aDDroves earlier vie i (presscdi-tr M.L.Kesarr ex racted a ove. L7. In State of .Iarkhand v Kamal Prasac reported in ( 2014) 7 SCC 223, similar view was I Su oreme.Court nd it was eld as follows In t find,no tf fa w of the aeted ntious ,ssue th "47. lovees Don I ent em rele nt con ore -lha-D-JPJearE contin laid down bv continuouslv therefore. e Karn !?ka-u-AmadeY! (2006) 4 SCC 7 : 2OO6 scc ( as) 73) atD arc5_3_Elt.tercly es to the Dresent cases. The Divisictt t. Bench of the a etr servlce for al ori ciol is Cou E - ---------------- .-7/. SN,J wp 28476 2022 hCo r emolov ees are entitled for the relief, the same cannot be interfered with bv this Court." as rt h I ld that

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.LZ.2O2Z passed in W.P.No.27602 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 ol 2(J23 dated 10.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2024 an SLP No.32847 of 2O24.

19. The iud ment of the A Dex Court in Hari Krishna Man dir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others reoorted tn AIR 2O2O Suorem e Court 3969 a nd n Darticular oara Nos.l00 and 1O1 held as follows: "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are dutv-bo und to exercise such ower w has fa iled to exerci se or has wronolv exercised the Governm ntora ublic authori I ion conferr nitb a statute or a rul a Dolicv decision of the Government or as exercised SUch discret on mala fide irrelevant consid eration. (l n -- 1'-il-=--- \ .r SN.J wp 28176 2022

101. In all such cases, the High Court mus: ssue a writ of rn*Ournr. and give directions to compel lerformance in an uppropriute and lawful manner of :he discretion confeiieO upon the Government or a public I uthority"'

20. TheDi vision Bench of this ourt in Ju men ssed i n W.A .Nos.782 of dated 1O. o6.20 13 Da ot2ot2 hile ohold ino the Judq ment dat d o8. 9.2 10 7ot 2007 and C.C. o.48 of 2 o8 pa ssed in W.P. lo10 and 54 .24 7 observed s und er: - "Further, it is manifest from the material orr services of the similarly placed persons who alr Courts were regularized. The a ppella nt-Corpo r various office orders/circu la rs dated 20'12 1! 06.10.2007 and Iatest being 4'7'2009 for casual/contract employees, It is also to be seer T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practict: or workman. As can be seen from the factue cases on hand, engaging the respondents fo- continuous period of time on casual basis is r labour practice attracting the provisions of S: ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relyin; of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respotr to regularization as directed in the impugn-" learned single Judge considered all the aspec: detail, in the proper perspective, which, in otl does not warrant interference in these appeal: record that the rroached the law rtion also issued 89, 11.09.1992, 'eg u larization of that Section 25- oy any emPloYer scenario of the such a long and )thing but untair .tion 25-T of the on the decisions lents are entitled l orders, as the of the matter in considered view 2L, TheDi vision Bench of this Court itt it lud men dated 19 .o9.2 reDorted in O1,7 Dassed in W.P.N o.27 2L7 of 2017 2018( 2)ALD Daoe 282atD ara 6 and Dara 18 observe dasun der: - t ;L- : I t I I l I I i € 27 SN,J wp 284T 6 2022 "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 lg94 and c.O. Ms. No.212. dated 22.4.1994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one_time a bsorption/reg u la rization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directiona 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 22.4:7994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in l|ma Devi,s case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in Favour of the dtates where State enactments banning regularization/ab exist. ore Act 2 of 1994 1OO and G.O. Ms. The 22.4.t994. do not wh ittle down the width and the ow rth e the dire lons rssued bv the in Para 53 of its iudomen t in Uma Devi's Su oreme Cou case ( su nra) t is- ssi hle for the of rrermt res Dondents to take shelter under Act2ofl 94 and G.O. the Detatione rs, who have. ad m ittedlv. satisfied the ria laid down IN Para No.53 of the iudo ent in Uma Devi 's case (s u Dra ). 18. For the aforementioned reasons, order. dated 27.6.2017, in OA No.1442 of 2074, on the fite of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ Deti ion is allowed with the di ection nden ts to consider reo ularisation of the servi the oetition ers aoainst the existi vaca ncies of Ins ectors nd aDD int them subie t to the tr satisfvinq the criteria laid do ninPa ra No.53 of the iudqme tin Uma Devi's case (s e comDleted with ntwom nths fro the dat of recei tofaco vof this order." ra ). This orocess m ust sorption No.272. an u ratecto therefor .4.19 No.2 e n I u n n r r

22. The D !vtsl on Ben ch of thi s Cou rt dated 21.O4. 2O2O oassed in I .A.Nos.1 ts Jud .I t of 2020 tn 1 of 2019 28 SN,J \\p 28176 2021 and W.P.No.23()57 of 20tg reDorted in 2O2) 4 A D a e 379 at aras 45 48 and r under:- "45. There is no dispute that petitioners havr :een working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almc;t (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimur time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuousl', working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 tlll : rte. 48, It is not known whv the lst resD c ndent has not followed the decision in Uma Devi's c3;e (suora), as exolained in M.L. Kesari's case (suora) arr J undertaken a one-time exercise of oreoarinq the lisl of dailv waoe emolovees who had worked for more tha ten (10 ) vears ithout the intervention of the Courts an( t- I_[bgra.ls-as-e! 1O.4.2006 and su b ect them to a Drocess \ ication as to whether thev are workinq aoainst va rn!__pgsts_ jrrl c rsts, and if so, oossess reouisite qualificbtions for the 11 reoularize t etr servrces. I n

50. Accordingly. the writ petition is allowec; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2Ot9 passed by the 1st re:;1 ondent rejectlng the cases of petitioners for regularization of ,ervices on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary ilnd violative of Articles 14, t6 and 21 of the Constituti( I of India; the -time basis resoondents are di Detitioners' services from the date each of the Deti tioners comDlete 10 vears of service on dailv 'r a-ges-tq!]]lxc :y shall not be h entitled to anv monetarv relief. The said ti rercise shall be done within two (2) weeks from the da e of recei pt of I coDv of the order." d to reoularize or ment. B ldates f h I

23. This Court ooines that ' in the Dres.( nt case, the resoon dents failed to disc ha e their dutv in exami nrnq the reoue st of the DetitiOner for req r la rizataon of petitioner's services, wh o is workinq as Dar time swee per and furthe r to con s d rh ls re d uest o treat I he temDorarv t ;j ffi,W:&XXA :; 29 SN,.I wP 28476 2022 serv ce e tio r tn hel st de os of e sweeDer as reqular one for all DU TDOses bv ra ntinql st qra deoavwith Deriod ical i ncrem ent revlsed from time to time from the date of aDD o intment oft he petition er.

24. Thi Co o ne e led for n t sef r n s r the eli fa Draved for in the prese nt Writ Petition rn vtew of the o d ment ferredto and extra cted abov ) and the vte of the Division Ben hof this. Court inth Judqm ents referred to and ext acte ab eA ex in vari f s e. T 2 n I n a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on beharf of the petitioner and rearned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 c) The observations of the Apex Court an the varaous judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: ! 30 SN.J wp 28476 2022 '1 i i i ..1 i)(2o2o) l scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Pase 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(Sc) 12O9 (v) (2017) l Scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2O13) 14SCc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (201s) I Scc 26s (x) (2ot4) 7 scc223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ol 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 sCc 1 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2Ol. I and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment datr: I 08.09.2010 passed in w.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 20O8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated L9.O9.2Ot7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 ot 291. I (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in f.A.Nos.l ot 2O2O in : of 2O19 and w.P.No.23O57 oJ zOLg (referred to and extrE Eted above). 3l S N,J \\p 28416 2022 g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order, The rit Petition is allowed, the oetitioner ts the claim f the petitioner for req u la rizataon of oetitioner's services, and also the claim to Dut-fort directe of the DEtition er to treat th e tem D()I e rvse rvtces oJ the Detitio er in the last qrade Dost of SweeDer as reo lar one for al urooses bv orantinq last orade oav with Deriod ica I ncrements revised from time to t me from the date of ADDointment of the Detitioner a d all conse uential benefits dulv encloslno all the relevant documents n SUO])ort of Det tion er s case writ Det tton wtthin AD eriod of on AS DU f orth in th e Dresent e (O1) w eek fro m the date of receiot of co v of the order and the reso ndents shall examine and consider the same in accord nce to law. in conformitv with orin cioles of natural ustice bv f oersonal hearinq to the providino an oDDortunitv net ati r tn tarnrc of order a ccad b the Su Court in Uma Devi's case re orted in 2Oo6 4 ) SCC Paoe 1. o the i u ome nt inW .P.No.24377 ol 7 dated 2oo D ( .o9. Ore edin2 11 1 P a a \ \ t - 32 SN,J wp_23176 2022 confir ed in W.A. No.782 of 2O1O dated 1(I46201-lLanrl also as per Division Bench Judoment of th! i_Gpqt_deled 19.09 .2O17 oassed in W.P.N o.272L7 of 20 c 7 reoorted in 2018 2)ALD oaqe 242 and also he Eti ,ri Bench Judqm ent of this Court dated 2L.04.20 . A---mssed--tn I.A.Nos lO57 ot 2019 reDorte d in 2O2O( ALD oaoe 3 79 which had attained finalitv. within a oeriod of four (O4) weeks_ rom the ofr ceiDt of coov of this orde .1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 in W.P.No. du' k n )4 Z conside ration the observations and the lavr aid down the Apex Court in the various judoments (r1 .ferred to and extracted a bove), and in oa rticu lar Da ra No.53 of the iudqmen t of the Aoex Court in the case State f Karnataka v Uma Devi and d ul d ecision to the oetition er However conl nunicate the ther ! shall be no order as to costs. Miscella neous petitions, if Petition, shall stand closed. t t any, pendin! in this Writ t- F ,c.SULE NT RE qts TA KHA GIST DEVI RAR IIRUE COPYII ,BLE MRS. JusTlcqs LordshiP's Kind Per to THE HON (For Her One f air coPY SECTloN OFFICER ett nuuTNANDA r) To, 1 11 L.R. copies IZ T.S.,HYderabad. Affairs, New Delhi. Buildings, HYderabad Secretariat, T.S.,HYderabad Secretary' Finance and Planning Department' Telangana

2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law' Justice and Company 3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library' High Court + ine eriniipdl Secretary, Panchayathraj Department' Telangana Secretariat' S ii "'piln.ipaf o. ine olitti,i Collector -- ? il?c"l1;iEiJiiit*U oni"r, ZLta Praja Parishad, Karimnasar District' i!. ii.iE ti;il;'Frriinio o"u"topmentbnicer, Ganneruvaram Mandal' s ij;e CCi; Snt. cu GANESH Advocate [o^PUC] io. i'i']" d6.io-eC Fon senvicES t, Histi court ior the state of relangana' at 11.iii,;"bCt" SRt. i'nnoerp REDDY KATTA, sc [oPUC] 12.fwo CD CoPies Chrir.m'n of Selection Committee and Minimum Waoes Committee, Karimnagar District' Karimnaqar District. Hvderabad [OUT] "nJ B IVI 7 I l E I HIGH COURT DATED:0610812025 i :: SI"{ ,) , o c.) 1 t -tB 2u26 i \ a(., v \ E:,EI'l ORDER WP.No.28476 of 2022 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITH(- UT COSTS *lt' $S-- /*\u