Writ Petition No. 28281 of 2022 · The High Court · 2025

Order

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 petitioner aDD ached the Court seekino Draver 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 05.O2.L992, as unjust, unfair, totally arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 16,2t,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 Acl, 1976 and Govt' Orders from time to time, to pay livlng 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'ble Court in WP No. 33936 of 2011 and Batch Cases dated 02.05.2018 (2O2O (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) followed by decision 4 SN,J \vp 28281 2022 of the fion'ble High Court of Ap. in W.A.No dated 05.09.2021 based on principle laid by Supreme Court in C.A. No. fZ5+ of'ZOfe Apei 23.03.2018 to reckon contingent services oi ::Tp:::!i", of quatifyins service ro srant of per and other retirement benefits by releasinc, monetary beneflts in the Iast grade post rnclit,i increments, as revised fro ni time t" t*re- :?T,?:nrur,:! as per principte taid by Apex Corr or unton ot India Vs. Avtar Chand in i.n. ruo. - 2010 & Batch Cases dated 19.02.20rS tAr;3 "i by applying the aforesaid principles 'inJ a,",i Hon'ble Apex Court & Division Benches ,nauil i our Constitution by this Hon'ble Court rn tnu c-use and pass..... " tB3 of 2021 the Hon'ble (:ourt, dated )etitioner for sion, g ratu ity :onsequential nq pe riod ica I with lOOo/o t in the case 2.76-3445 of ,t019 sc 32) ;rons of the rticle 141 of of petitioner 3 Le n oetitroner placinq relianc on the ave rme nt 5 ixa_dc_!!ilIe f etition vrit o da it a perta tntnqin DA rticu la r, to th s 'en dered bv h tf e s C n w h he e n h re r _ nore than a d cad a n r d f t e lon r e H dfort r e t PERUS ED THE RE oRD:- DISCUssrON AND co CLUSI N:- 4.L u ela onb I alf oft he er su m b t s tn _ the oresent a c e d e 8 2 1 s d P 4 7 this t ;ou rt, dated t2 ) reDorted tn 5 SN,J wp 2828t 2022 a LD 011 1

234 sc firm inW N t 2010, dated 10.o 6.201 3anda lso order, dated 19.0 9,2077 Das ed in W.P.N o.272t7 of 2017 reoorted in 2018 (2) ALD P e2 W.P .No.23 O57 of O19 re orted n 2020(4) ALD Pao e 79. oth order ted 2

4.2 2 a2 a L ndin coun resDonden t No.4 submits that the qr Detatione rasDUt-forth in the oresent Writ Petitio n had not been addr ssed to the resoonde nts her tnaso n date and th efor leva nc tion r cann com ln tn tsh ern rn onst h ce of e dh ce e reli r petiti oner in the resent Wit oetitio n cann b h ra nted n er s ition rm evan ea h the u t- forth in the Dresent Writ Petiti on bv wav of a detailed re r tata nto er s n en her tn n u t e e a h den w c a reasonable oeri od. 6 SN,J rlp 2828 t 2022 r\t

6. Learned counsel aooearino on behatf ol .! h€_-pelitlqne[ does not disDu te the said submis sro rt he lea rned , counsel artno onb of ttr, : resoo n den t No.4.

7. Th Aoex Cou rt in the udoment r r in(2o20) 1 scc (L&S ) in Prem Sinqh v Sta ofU ar P desh and oth ers. a para 36 heldasu nde r: ort€ "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 supt As they have worked in the work_charged est not against any particular project, theii servicr have been regularized under the Government and even as per the decision of this Court Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court decision has laid down that in case services rendered for more than ten years without the c Court's order, as one-time measure. the s regularized of such employees. In the facts c those employees who have worked for ten yea should have been regularized. It would not be regulate them for consideration of regularizatior have been regularized, we direct that their s treated as a regular one. However, it is made they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues o in wages had they been continued in servicr before attaining the age of superannuation. Thr entitled to receive the pension as if they harl ', not been ir ers for 30- r a nnuated. a rlish ment, ) ought to rstructions r State of r the said I ave been c ver of the e -yices be 'the case, T; OT more t,roper to l as others < rv ices be : ear that ' J iFfe rence : -egularly :' shall be retir d _ services I 2 rnted as C :..>,'-, l SN,J $tp 28281 2022

8. Th Aoex Court i the case of Dharwad District PWD Literat Dailv Waoe Emolovees As ociation Vs. State of Ka rnat ka reoorted in 1990(2) SCC Paqe 396 laid orin ciole that the State shoul not keeo a oerson in temn ra rv or adhoc service for lonq oeriod an have to tre t such Dersons as reqular one.

9. Pa ra No,53 of th of the iudom ent of the Aoex Court tn the State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadev , dated 10 .O4.20O6 reDorted in (2006) 4SCClis extracted hereunder:- 1 c n 72 19 7 Na ar o9 an fied. Ther scR 12 B . Nar a 1979 4 "53. On asoect n eeds tobe lari mav he cases where irreoular aDDointments (not illeoal la in R.N. N n o7 and referredtoinD i!!? 15 above, of dulv oualified Dersons in dulv sanctione vacant Dosts m qht have been made and the emo lovees have continued to work fort en vears or m orehu twi t hout the tnterven ion of orders of the courts or of ribunals. The ouestion of requlariza ion of the service s of such emolovees mav have to be considered on merits in the lioht of the orincioles ettled bv this Court in the cases a bovereferred to and in the lioh of this t h I ud m nf h State Governments an their instrum enta I ities sho U ld take ste DS to reo ularize a e-time measure the services of such irreqularlv a oointed, n dul n t not un der ver oforde oft he sa ncti ned oosts bu In t h tf aarit t T ndia all nton s 1 8 SN.J vtp 28281 2022 .r'l rts or of trib unals and should furthr r V can san rre r itm ts n e ca esw ere m e sure hat nto fiil those €tr be filled uo. dailv wa ers ees ot ustbeset in I ) a l'il m r o

10. T e m tofth .n 2()24 Law it

20.1 2. 2024, tn a (o Anita and others v Unio n of India and others, and :he re leva nt Daraqraoh Nos.12, 1 24, 26. 2 and 28 ,r'e e ater, L2 u r hereunder: "12.- Despite being labefled as ,'par.: workers," the appellants performid t essential tasks on a daily and conti r basis over extensive periods, ranging over a decade to nearly two decades, engagement was not sporadic or tem[l in nature, instead, it was recurrent, reE and akin to the responsibitities tyf ; associated with sanctioned posts. Mori: the respondents did not engage any I personnel for these tasks during appellants tenure, underscoring indispensable nature of their work. uo us -hei r )ra ry ular, ca lly )ver, n The claim bv the resDondents r natureo the work DE

13. h ew e :, as rmedbr aoD el la nts was Derennr al and funda en rl to .ring The rec nature of these duties necessitates c.lassification as regular posts, irrespective of lrow their initial engagements were labelled. It i; also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of lrese same tasks to private agencies ifte. the I t t c L SN,J \Yp-28281 2022 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 iemporary 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 misclasslfying 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 hiohliohts the iudicia 's role in rectifvino lassif cations an n r 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" appointments. It cateooricallv hel emplovees in irreqular aDDointment re enqaqed in dulv sanctioned Do ad served "irregular" l0 SN,J wp 28281 2022 tnuouslv for more than en ve rs be consi dered for re ulari ttme m ea su re. However, the laudable in the judgment is being subverted when insti rely on its dicta to indiscrim inately reje claims of employees, even in cases wher appointments are not illegal, but merel adherence to procedural formalities. Gover departments often cite the judgment in Um (supra) to argue that no vested reg u la rization exists for temporary overlooking the judgment's acknowledgment of cases where regulariza approp riate. Thi selec IVE AD licatio ndi the iudo ent's oirit a d our e( wea Ponizinq it aoai nst em lovees who renderedin d isoen sable servic s deca des. se, ( i rould - one- :, nt oF t rtions (: the : their y lack 'r ment a Devr tt to ( yees/ r (olicit t on is ! torts I ivelv _ have _ over

27. In Iight of these considerations, ir opinion, it is imperative . for goverr departmenis to lead by example in providirr and stable employment. Engaging workers temporary basis for extended periods, espe when their roles are integral to the organiz: functioning, not only contravenes internit labour standards but also exposes the organ, to legal challenges and undermines emp I morale. By ensuring fair emplol,r practices, government institutions reduce the burden of unnecessary litig a promote job security, and uphold principles of justice and fairness that are meant to embody. This approach :r with international standards and scl positive precedent for the private sect< foltow, thereby contributang to the o,/ betterment of labour practices in the cotrr 28. In view of the above discussion Findings, the appeals are allowed. The imprt orders passed by the High Court and the Tr I m ent )Fair cially :ion's )yee tion, 3ra ll rtry. I ,i SN,J rvp-2ll28l_2022 are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 .70.20L8 are quashed; The appellants shall be taken ii. on dutv forthwith and their services requla sed forthwith. However, the appellants shall not be entitled pecu n ta ry benefits/back waqes for the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuitv of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their post- retiral benefits.ll

11. The Judqment of the Apex Court dated 31.01.2O25 reported in 2025 INSC 144 in *SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD", in partieirlar, the relevant para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder: '15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over severa| vears, sometimes spannrrlq more than a decade. Even if certain muster rllls were not produced in full, the Emplover's failure to furnish such records- despite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under . t4{elLestablished labour ufls rude perpetual dai circumstances ntractual enoaoements in work is oermanent i n Indi n labo rl w -w r disfavo SN,J u p_28281 2022 natu re. Morallv and leqallv workers who fulfil onoolnq muntcroa !reouirement vea r _ after vear cannot be dismissed summan Iy as ( ispensa ble, Darticularl v in the absence of a qen.uinc contractor ao ree e nt. At this juncture, it would be ir ,l)ropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinit(: "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent jrdgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in he following pa ragra phs: employment , reflects a ;ely affects the private rs led to an rangements, iob secu rity, have been undermining s, entrusted and justice, avoid such /hen public temporary ental trends rlso sets a iic trust in "22. The pervasive misuse of temporar,/ contracts, as exemplified in this ca: r broader systemic issue that adv€r workers' rights and job security. 1r sector, the rise of the gig economy lr increase in precarious employment . r often characterized by lack of benefits and fair treatment. Such practices criticized for exploiting workers and labour standards. Government instituti() with upholding the principles of fairness bear an even greater responsibility t. exploitative employment practices. \ sector entities engage in misuse () contracts, it not only mirrors the detri r observed in the gig economy but concerning precedent that can erode put governmental operations. 25. It is a disconcerting reality th r temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of explci ation. While the foundational purpose of temporary ,r )ntracts may have been to address short-term or se:;onal needs, they have increasingly become a mech. r ism to 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 evade long-terr obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: 13 SN,J wP_)8281_202) . Misuse of "Temoorarv" Labels: Emolovees enoaoed for work that is essential recu rrr n q, and inteo ral to the functionino of an institution are often labelled as "tem orarv" or "contract ual," even when their roles mirror reqular emolovees. Such those of masclassificat on denrives workerso t diqnitv, securitv, and benefits that reqular emolovees are entitled to, deso ite performinq adentical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. . Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another, This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances." t4 SN,J wp 2828 t_2022 e Employer's [)onsequently, s with some rrly, this only /,f rkmen were ertain status. :a nce of their , it failed to r back wages degree oF statrr ory violation

16. The High Court did acknowledge. inability to justify these abrupt terminations, it ordered re-engagement on daily wagr measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrett perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant. \ left in a marginally improved yet still urr While the High Court recognized the impcr work and hinted at eventual regularizatic r aFford them continuity of service or meaningf commensurate with the evident on record. L7. In light of these Employer's discontin uation oF the stands in violation of the most basic labour law princi I es. Once it is established that their services r erted without adhering to Sections 6E and - P. I nd u stria I Disputes Act, 1947, and that - enoaoed in es entia oe nnial dutie s, these wo rke ! s cannot be ated too erDetual uncertaintv wtrle concerns of muni ciDal budoeta nd co ln ew ith recr uitme t rules merit con siderati on, s :h conce ns do not a bsolve the Em lover f statutor ob liqati ns I or neoate equitable entitlementl , Indeed, bu rea ucratic lim itations can n t trumo tl1: leqitimate d cor 1 :inuouslv in for n considerations, t I ) Appellant Workmr r- 6N of th v w m J I e1iod. t; l5 SN,J wp]8281 2022

18. The imouqned order of the Hiqh Court, to the extent thev confine the Ao oellant Workmen to future nt nuitv or dailv-waqe enoaoement without meaninqfu I back waqes, is herebv set aside with the followinq d irection s: 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 continuiiy 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 oeriod of absence (from the date of h}'l ch r lt ha counted for continuitv of service and al! consequenti al benefits, such as senioriW and elioibili for oromotions if a nv. ln af ion until tnctz te III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. IV. The Resoondent Emolover is directed to initiate a fair and transoarent rocess for reoularizinq the Aooellant Workmen within six the date of reinsta ment, dulv months fro considerinq the fact that thev hav oerformed dutaes akin to oermanent peren n I I municipal l6 (i SN,J wp 2828I 2022 In assessi nqr 1 ulali zat on, retroa lv( never apI ed r DOS Em plover shall not imDose Dro ced u raI cri efla re utre ents were A edv can heR a th e lon r i ned t dai w statutorv and eouitab le norms. ellan w ular em n e rcational or afs uch simiI rlv situated . 'l'r the extent t for uc ies exist t t.r lolover shall ra' roces ses lc r ees are not ; contrar VE d I )

19. In view of the above. the appeal(:. filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeali I filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed.,, L2. The Aoex Court in a iudqment reoorteq _in (2OL7 )1 Su reme Cou rt Case s 148. in State of Puniir r and vs Ja oi it Sinoh and oth ers t Par s54 (1) (2)(3) of the said iudom ent ob erved as ! trlc-ri "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, nd ts su b-oa ras ^ t ite adjudicating upon the above controversy had concludeot, lrt iemporaiT employees were not entitted to the minimum ctl \e regular pay_ scale, merely for the reason, that the activitic caried on by daily-wagers and regular emptoyees were simil. t The futt bench however, m3de two exceptions. Temporary erna ctyees, who fell i.: eith:t of the two exceptions, were held enttt ?d to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regutar. :,nployeJs. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of ihe l^,trh Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:- "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contrd, tual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if t,tpointed after undergoing a selection process based up,n fairness and equality of opportunity to all other elio, tre candidates, I 17 SN,J wp-28281 2022 shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. I (2) But if dailv waeers. ad hoc or contrac tual ADD intees are not aDDointed aqainst re ular sanct,toned osts ANdth servtce-s are e conti nuousl v the tate with notiona I breaks. vernme nt or fs nstrumen lities forasu lono Deriod i.e. for 7O vears. such dailv waoers. ad hoc or contractual a DOtn fee shall be entitl' minimum of the ular oav scale without anv allowances on the assum tion that work of Dere nial natu is availa le and havino work, d for such lonq oeriod of time. an eouitab le riqht ,s created in such cateoorv of o rsorrs. reoularization, if an mav ha ve to be conside red ratelv in terms of leqallv Dermtssible scheme. (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitted to arrears for a period of three years and two months.,, eir cla ,

13. Th e iudomen t of the Aoex Cou rt reDor d in 2O1 0(9) t een: 247 M.L.Kesari a d othe tn Darticular, aras 4 o 9 read u nder:

4. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered on 10.4.2006 (reDorted in 2006 G) SCC 1). In that case a Constitutio n Bench of this Court held that appointments made without follo wing the due process or the rules relating to did not confer any right on the appointees and appointment courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re_ engagement nor make their service permanenq and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance untess the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the coutts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic l8 SN,J wp 28281 2022 arrangement of its affairs by the State or it:; i, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facil,ttl of the constitLttional and statutory mandates. -, held that a temporary, contractual, casuai ( employee does not have a tegat right to be -, unless he had been appointed in terms of the ,-t,t adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the ConstitL however made one exception to the above c same is extracted below : s:tru menta lities, e' the bypassing is Court fu rther . a daily-wage ade permanent ) /ant rules or in lion. This Court tsition and the _( f_ Ir L ! I I t/ I t ! I .! uIn in dul "53. One a spect needs to be clarifiec There mav be cases where irreqular aooointmen (not illeoal tmentsl as exolained tn s.u ADDO' Na ravana ooa t7967 (7) SCR 72A1, R.N. Na .oa f7972 (7) (4t scc soTt SCC 4O9l and B.N. Naqaraian I 7971 and referredtoinoa ra 75 abo ve. o dulv oualified ts might have bee made and the e Dlovees hav -continued to work for ten vears or more bu _without the inter ntion of o rders of t,he courts of tr, u na ls. I The ouestion of resula rization ofl e serv es of such emo s mav have to be onsidered on merits in the liqht of the o rincioles ettled bv this c,ourt in the cases abovereferredto, td in the lioht of th,s iudam ent. In the Union of teY t, India, _ _ and their the Sfate Govern ents i nstrumentaliti,esshould take steps t 7 reoularize as a one-time measure, the services of t;1.ch irregularly apoointed, who have worked for ten- ears or more in dulv sanctioned posts but not Jl,tder ver of orders of t,he courts or of tribuna I ;_ and should further ensure rec ,itments are und rtaken to fill those vacant sa t :tioned Dosts t hat reouire ,n - cases where orarv emDlovees or dailv wac't rs are beinCT e process mustb e set in motion within six months from this da te. to be filled uD at con red ular Dloved. r , '5. It is evident from the above that ther,: i:; an exception to the general principles against 'regularizattor enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilted . (i) The employee concerned should have workeLt for 70 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefi, ),- protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In o her words, the l9 SN,J \\p _28281 ]022 State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular. reoularize the servtces of those irreqularlv aooointed without the benefit or Drotection of anv in rim orders of v, n -tim m ke ste r more ure must be Umadevi s o-n lo es who rts or tribu at such motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 7O.4.2OO6).

6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentalitY should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of cou rts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in IJmadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instru mentalities did not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight, In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 20 SN,J wp 28281-2022 53 of the decision in lJmadevi, will not lose , e,ir right to be considered for regularization, merely becaus r the one_time exercise was completed without considerintT t,eir cases, or because the six month period mentioned in p,tr, .r3 of lhmadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should t t sider all daity- wag e/ad hoc/ those employees who had put t, 1O years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 witho,_ availrng the protection of any interim orders of courts ot t i,5unats. 1f any employer had held the one-time exercise in ter-, s of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of som,: :mployees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umatlt, l, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as; ) continua on of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise fi tt be concluded only when all the employees who are entttled \ be considered in terms of Para 53 of lJmadevi, are so consider j t. 8, The object behind the said direction .1 1 para 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure l! at those who have out in more than ten years oi cinl! lUO us servrce without the rotecti'on of anv i nter'im orde,t s of co urts or tribunals. before the te of ln Umadevi was vtewof '.! rc---!h_at _!he '1 roetuate the l tilv- waoe/ad- emD for lono Deriods and the1 oeriodicallv y ve served for tht con stituti. nal relatins to re a'uitment and e effect of the direc on is that ail t rs as on I ) without the or tribunal, in nteri, t vacant DOsts, Dosse ation, lific, OL enti led to considered for reou rizatiot fhe fact that , the emolover rtaken sucl e ercise of reouIariz ation within six mon ths of ttI decision in Uma devi or that such JI' reoard to a limited few. will not es uch 'he ricih ttobe emD lovees. fot_'eoularization i as a one-tim e r Dtactice of hoc / casua I reoula rize themon the oround that thev I or statutorv Dro vtstons ADD intment The LE who have worked for mote t'han t ( n n ino the requrst t no Dersons on ndc taken onl Y has not un rci ew,as I ctt ;en 200 c e b ec,st n , nd, n a o e : :{ mea ure.

9. These appeals have been pending for more han four years after the decision in tJmadevi. The Appellant ( aita panchayat, 21 SN,J \vp_28281 2022 Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision in lJmadevi or th e reafte r.

10. The Division Bench of the High Couft has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with Iaw. 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 daity wage/casual/ad -hoc employees serving the Zita panchayai and if so whether such employees (inctuding the respondents) fulfilt the requirements mentioned in para 53 of umadevi. If they fulfitt 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 fulfilt 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. L4, IN the iudoment of the Aoex Cour in Nihal Sinqh and others v. St te of Puni ab reDorted in (2013) 14 SCC 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 that wages were paad by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary 72 I SN,J wp 28281 2022 control vested with the State. It held that thr: c:reation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadrri is a matter exclusively within the authority of the Stat :, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but clclse to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. refused to It alsl _ acceot the defence that there were no sanl lioned posts and so th re was iustification for the Sta ie to utilise serv ces of la roe n umher of eo le liket h e llants for decades. It held that "sanctioned posts do tot fall from heaven" and that the State has to creatg _them bv a n a con scious ch oice on the ,basis of me ration,r assessment of need Referrino to Umadevi befo re them were not arbitrarilv chosen, it held that t! e apoellants their initial ADDOi ntment was not an'irreqular' Dpoantnl :nt as it had been made in accordance with the statutc! !/__pfsegduC prescribed under the Police Act. 1861, arl I the State cannot be heard to sav that thev are not r: rtitled to be te 1 permanent basis as, accordinq to it, their appointmentri were ourelv the services of h tem Dor rv and not a ainst anv san tioned E lsts created 23 SN,J \\1p 28281-2022 bvthe State. It was held that the iudqment in Umadevi cann ot become a licence for exploitation b its instru m enta lities and neither the Government of h Puniab nor those oub !ic sector Banks can continue such a practice inconsistent with their obliqation to function in accordance with the Constitution.

15. The iudqment o the Aoex Court reoorted in 2015 f 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 paras 7 and 8 reads as under: (7) We find it difficult to acceot the reasoninq adopted bv the Hiqh Court. The riqht of the appellants to seek reqularization flows from the G.O. No.272 dated 22.4.1994. The aDpellant have been in service of the first resDondent not onlv Drior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subsequent to the issue of G.O. till todav. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants.

8. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' services be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous service as was laid down by this Coutt in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh A Ors. 2009 (8) scc 480. a 24 SN,J \yp 28281-2022 a'

16. In Am arkant Rai v State of Bihar reoo: ed (2015 )8 SCC 265, the Suoreme Court held that ''l'.re objective behind the exception carved out in this case v,as to permat regularization of such appointment, which rre irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointmen g r, whi6h are irregular but not illegal, and to ensurg_ secu ritv of emolovment of those Dersons who had ser',r the State Governme t and their instrumen alities for rr ore than ten ears". I 'or 29 vears. This decision aDDroves earli r vrew e: :pressed in t case em M.L.Kesari extracted a bove. L7. In State of Jarkha nd v Kamal PrasarI reoorted in (20L4) 7 SCC 223. simi lar view was t I {en bv the Suoreme Court and it was held as follows : ! is Cou ,,47.... In view of the cateoorical findino I fact on the relevant contentious issue that the tesp,onatl nt emolovees have continued in their service for more I han 7O vears continuouslv therefo ', the leoal orinciple laid down bv kavU adevi Sta (2006) 4 SCC 7 : 2006 S,CC (L&SI 731 at pala 53 sauarelv aDolies to the oresent cases, The Divisiot1 Bench of the resDondent e?,e cannot be emolovees are entitled for the relief, the s ,n tertered with bv th,s madevi ca Court." hc, fKa a .i 25 S\.J lvp 28281.-2022

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.LZ.2O2Z passed in W.P.No.27602 ot 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 ot 2O23 dated 1O.10.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.

19. The iudoment ot heA ex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State ot Ma harashtra and Others reoorted t D in AIR 2O2O SuDreme Court 3969 and in articular oara Nos.lOO and 1Ot held as followsl "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 to exercise such mandamus, but are dutv-boun ower wh h has failed to exercise or has wronqlv exercised discretion conferr eduoon it bv a statute, or a rule, or a oolicv decls ton of the Government or has exercised uch di V n consideration, retion mal uthori V

101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority. " 26 I SN,J \yp 28281 2022

20. The Division Bench of this Court in i:s Judqment dated 1O.O

6.2013 Dassed in W.A.Nos.782 of I01O and 854 ot 2OL2 while uoholdi nq the Judqment dat<:, I 08.O9.2010 Dassed in W.P.No.2 4377 of 2007 and C.C.ttl r.48 of 2008 observed as under:- "Further, it is manifest from the material on services of the similarly placed persons who ap; Courts urere regularized. The appellant-Corpor: various office orders/circuiars dated 20.12.19t 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for - casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice L or workman. As can be seen from the factua cases on hand, engaging the respondents for s continuous period of tlme on casual basis is n I labour practice attracting the provisions of Sett ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relyinq r of the Apex Court, rightly held that the responclr to regularization as directed in the impugne<1 learned single Judge considered all the aspects detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our does not warrant interference in these appeals.' ecord that the oached the law i,rn also issued 9, 11..09.7992, gularization of l- at Section 25- 7 any employer scenario of the rch a long and hing but unfair on 25-T of the rr the decisions nts are entitled orders, as the )l' the matter in :onsidered view 2L. The Division Bench of this Court in iEs Judqment dated L9.O9.2OL7 Dassed in W.P.No.27l1 .7 of 2OL7 reoorted in 2O18(2)ALD Daqe 282 at oara 1, 3 and para 18 obseryed as under:- "16. It is trite that the law declared by the S,r binding throughout the country under Arti,: Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that ) judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), war; provisions of Act 2 of L994 and G.O. Ms. 22.4.1994, were in existence. The Suprenr denouncing the practice of regularization and preme Court is : 141 of the , the time the rendered. the l'1o.212, dated Court, while absorption of f 21 SN,J wp_2a2\l 2422 r,vhitf la dovvn tha r ri.lth an.l la Bashi, i's persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time absorption/regularization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. [t has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 oF 1994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994, while giving directions in Para N0.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regu la rization/a bsorptro n exrst. Therefore. Act 2 of 1994 1OO and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated ))- 4 I qqa dn nnt ud m nt in Man r n issrred hw the ln trr I hc traie.torv of thc dirertions Supreme Court in Para 53 of its iudqment in Uma Devi's case (suora). It is, therefore-not oernnissible for the resoondents to take shelter u Lder Aet 2 of 1994 and G.O, Ms. No,212, dated 22.4.1994, to denv reqularization to the petitioners, who have, admittedly, satisfied the criteria laid down ln Para N .53 of the iudoment in Uma Devi's case (supra ). 18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2017, in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ Detition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to consider reqularisation of the services of the Detitioners aoatnst the existinq vacancies of Work subiect to their satisfvinq InsDectors and aDDoint the the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the judqment in Uma Devi's case (supra). This orocess must be comDleted within two months from the date of receiDt of ov of this order. "

22. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment dated 21.O4.2o20passed in I.A.Nos.l ot 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W-P.No.23O57 of 2019 reported in 2O2O(4)ALD paqe 379 at oaras 45, 48 andtrara 50 observed as under:- "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of j 28 SN,J !! P-282tt I 2022 service by now. They have been given minimun 1 rne-scale from the year 2000. They have been contlnuously ,r:rking without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till det: 44. It is not know whv the lst resoon lent has not followed the decisi on in Uma Devi's cas ! _ (supra), as exola ined in M.L. Kesari's case (su ra) anc undertaken a one-tim e exercise of oreDarino the list da ilv waqe orked for more than ln (1O) vears emDlov without the intervent ion of th e Courts and '1 ibu na Isason 10.4 -2 o6 and suhiectt em t(ranr cess ve IteaLion as to wheth r thev are workino aoain t posts and oossess reouisite oualifications for the oo ts. a nd if so, reqularize their services. ees who had t vace t l h t

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowe<l; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st resp: rCent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of s€ -rices on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary ,) rrJ viel61;ys .6 Articles 74, 76 and 21 of the Constitutior c,f India; thg resDon dents are directed to reoula rtze on r 1e-time basis Detitioners' services from the date each of re Detitioners complete 10 vears of service on dailv w I tes from the in itial ates of their a oDointment. ut, th(i _ shall not be entitled to anv mone arv relief. The said ex( rcise shall be done within two (2) weeks from he datr 1of receiot of coov of t e order." t

23. This Cou opines that in the preser t case, the resoond ents failed to discharoe the r dutv ir examin rnq the reouest of the Deti tioner for requl rrization of petitioner' who is workinq as full t me sweeper and f rther to co nsider his req uest to reat t e tem servt e of the oetitione r in the last ora de oo 5 i of full time sweeD r as requ lar one for all ouro ses bv _ rrantino last orade Dav with Derio ent revised 'rom timeto ical increm ora rv l 29 SN.J rvp 28281_2022 time from the date of aoooin tment of the oeti tioner, in accordance to !aw.

24. This Court ooines that oetitione r! s entitled for nsideration of eti f c rant of the reli t Draved for in the oresent Writ Petition in view of the observations of the Aoex Court in vario us iudqments (referred to a nd extracted above) and t e view of the Division Benc of this Court in the Judome nts referred to and extracted above. con sideration : -

25. Takino int a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petationer and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: i)(2o2o) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Pase 396 (iii) 2025 rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 30 SN,J rvp_28281.2022 f" (v) (2017) l Scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scc 247_ (vii) (2O13) 14SCC 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC 1797 (ix) (2O1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2oo6) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this lourt dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 201,1 and 854 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment datec 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.[\[ r,,48 of 2008 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this lourt dated L9.O9.2017 passed in W.P.No.272t7 ot 2O17 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this :ourt dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O20 in :L of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2OL9 (referred to and extrar ted above). g) In the light of discussion and conclusion rs arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the presenl order. 3l SN,J \tp 28281 2422 The rit Petition is allowed. the Detitioner rs di rected to DUt-forth the claim of the oetitio er for req u la rization of Detitioner's services, and also the claim of the oetitioner to treat the temoorarv services of the netition n the last L rrrf a nost of Sw ,1G ft e n for all urooses bv o rantino last orade oav with oe riodical lncremen s revised from time to time from t e date of aooointm ent of the Detitioner and all co nseo uentia I benefits, dulv enclosinq all the relevant documents in su DDo rt of oetitioner's case as out-forth in t e Dresent writ Detition, within a oerio of one (O1) wee from the he order an s on n shall exa ine and consid er the same in accordance to w tn it wl r les of na r stice b nrnwid tn tt an flnn(irtr r nltv of f!a r cnn:l hearrn a tn Detitioner in terms of orders Dassed bv the Suoreme r c rrI Co r rr.t ,.lt l Devi' r+ed in 2OO6 ( 4 lca .D a e1 the iudo ent Dassed in W .P.No.24377 of 2OO7 dated o8-o9- O1O reoorted in 2011 (1) ALD. Paoe 234 and as confi r ed in W.A.No. 782 ot zOLo dated 1O.O6 .2013, and so as ts! nB ch Ju of thi ) i ! I I \ o 32 SN,J \!,p 28281 2022

19.09.2 O17 oassed tn W.P.No.2 72l 7 ot 2OO reoorted in 20L8(2 )ALD Daqe 2a2 and also the Dir ision Bench .Iu d o ment of this Court dated 2 L.O4.202 -! r_ Dassed in I.A.Nos.1 ofzOzOin1of 2O19 in W .P.No.2 I alZ_el 2_Or9 reDorted in 2O2O(4)ALD oaoe 379 which finaliW, within a period of four (04) weeks_f m th is order dult, coDv of iot of e date rad attained consideration the observations and the law_ aid down bv the Ao x Court in th e various i udo ments ( r(: erred to and extra cted above). and in oa rticu la r- f the iudqm t of the Aoex Court in the case of State of Ka Dara comr runicate the rnataka v Uma Devi and d ul to the oetitaon er. However thert: shall be no d ecisio 5 order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendin! in ihis Writ Petition, shall stand closed. \ To, 1 //TRUE COPYII I .C. SULEKHA TANT R EGI ${I CTION OFFICER \ Eh .J na vath raj Depa rtme r r rera n ga na secreta ria t, ALLI NANOA One Fair Copy to the Hon,ble MRS JUSTICE SUT (For Her Ladyshi ps Kind Perusa I I?3"';[i:i,."€"JiPd {:ffi -c''*f^-r/ R5*rGrtr 2 Finance and Planning Department' Telangana The PrinciPal SecretarY-, Secretariat. HYderabad, S The District Collector and Chairman of Selection Committee and Minimum Wa'g"t Co;mittee, Rajanna Siricilla Distrrct tate of Telangana. ThechiefExecutiveotficer,ZillaPrajaParishad,RajannasiricillaDistrict' 4 5. The lvlandal Parishad Development Rajannasiricilla District Officer, GambhiraoPet Mandal'

6. 11 LR CoPies 7 The Under Secretary, Union of lndia' Ministry of Law' Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. Advocates Association, Library' High Court

8. The Secretary, Telangana Buildings, HYderabad.

9. One CC to SRI CH GANESH, Advocate tOPUCI 10.One CC to SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA' SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT 11.Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-I' High Court for the State of Telangana at loPUCl Hyderabad [OUT]

12. Two CD CoPies BSR BS R^q- HlGH COURT DATED: 12t08t2025 I I ORDER WP.No.28281 of 2022 to\(\iES T4 o C, t I .P I r'1ii 2026 * ' I ). '^L l rrO 't:,. * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS Ptq, >s\)-\r4