1. Enjamuri Mattaiah v. The State of Telangana

G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.O4.7994. Despite the p,:titioners eligibility anrl reccmmendations submitted b,/ the 6th respondent through proposals dated 09.Ol . ,'.A21, the petitioners services have not been regularized. Ac qr reved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ pe:it on. 4 RUSED T RECO The relevant D rtion of the i rn Duqned A) proceedin qs vide Roc.No.46476612022 /A.3 dated 16. 9.2022 of t h dent No.3-the Dir :e ctor of resDon I I 5 S N,J W.P. No.284 38 2022 MuniciDal Administration, Telanqana State issued to the petitioner herein as extracted hereunder: "Further, the individuals in their affidavit claimed, that they have completed more than 5 years as on cut off date i.e., 25.11.1993 and also fulfilled all conditions as prescribed in G. O. Ms. No. 2 1 2, Dated.22.O4.l99 4. In this context, it is pertinent to mention here that. there should be clear a vacancy to consider the service for requla rizatjp n of NMR's as -pqr quidcljlcs rssucrl !n G.O.Ms.No.212 Dated 22.O4.1994 whereas in the N r d ch rl M n tct a lit the S nctioned stren th as submitted bv the Municipal Commissioner is one ost of Mana er and one ost of Bill coll t here are no sanction of other oosts to consider the reqularisation of the NMR'S services as Der their to a eliqibilities." B) There eva tDo n nofth FN roceedin d s vide Lr.No.363O/2O21-85 (Pan), dated O8.11.2O21 of the District Pancha ato cer 6th Resoondent i.e., commissioner. Nereducharla essed to the al on N o v Municioalitv is extracted hereunder: "Through the reference cited above, the Commissioner, Nereducharla lYunicipa lity has informed that the Nereducharla Gram Panchayathi 6 sN,l W P.tlo.18438 2022 has became the lYunicipality on 02-08-201.-c and the entire Ramapuram Gram Pan( raryat, Narsaiahgudem, Netaji Nagar, NTR Nagar 'rom Dirshamcharla Gram Panchayathi and Ri magiri from Chillepalli Village has been taken and r'rr med the Nereducharla Municipality. Hence, rl is requested to inform the details of Sanctior f'osts (010) of the said Gram Panchayathis. Hence, in this regard it is hereby info'T to you that, the details of Sanction Posts (010) of the Grama Panchayat is in Nereducharla Marrd,ll of present Surya pet. " c) The interim orders of th s Cou rl: dated

07.o7.2f)2 oassed in W.P.No.2843 8of 2022 is extracted he reu nder: l'a, "...Perusal of the record would reveal lhat vide proceedings Lr.Roc.No.C117912021, dated 09.01.2021, respondent No.6 p roposa ls/reco m me ndations for regulariz;rti()n of the services of the petitioners herein to respott.ent No.3. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said proposals, respondent No.3 has not acted uoon it. In view of the same, respondent No.3 sh'll take all necessary steps to act upon the said proJ;o:;als dated 09.O1..2027 sent by respondent No.6 withttr :rqht (08) weeks from today. " 1 SN,] W.P.No.28438 2022 DISCUSSION AND CONCLU SION: 5, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that this Court, referring to the recommendations of the Nereducherla Municipality, Suryapet District, dated

09.Ol.2O2t, addressed to the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Telangana, Hyderabad, wherein proposals for regularization of the services of the petitioners herein, along with two others, were recommended by the Committee for initiation of further action. directed that appropriate orders be passed pursuant to the said recommendations. However, without considering the clear recommendation of the Commissioner, Nereducherla Municipality, Suryapet District i.e., 6th respondent vide Lr. R.O.C. No.C1l79/2O2I dated 09.01.2021, and contrary to the spirit of the interim orders dated Ot.O7.2O2Z passed by this Court, the respondent No.3 passed impugned order dated 16.09.2022 rejecting the petitioner's request for regularization of service on the ground that there must be a clear vacancy for regularization of NN4Rs as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 and since there are no clear vacancies in Nereducherla 8 SN,I w.P.'lo 28438 2022 l"lunicipality, the petitioner's request for rerlL larization cannot be considered and was accordingly rejectt:r.i Learned counsel appearing on behalf of th€r cetitioners

6. submits that the impugned order of reje(:[r()n dated

16.09.2022 is not only contrary to the procee:lings dated

09.01.2021, wherein clear proposals for regulari.:at on of the services of the petitioners were recommenc:(l by the Nereducherla Municipality, Suryapet District, an, tddressed to the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Telangana, Hyderabad, and the e ter dated

08.11.2021 issued by the District Pancha'/a Officer, Nalgonda, addressed to the Commissioner, l\ et educherla N4unicipality furnished details of sanctioned p,]sts in the Gram Panchayats oF Nereducherla Mandal (1: rt:sently in Suryapet District) through a tabular stateme rt and the same clearly reflects the existence of regular l anctioned posts under the 010 Head, including 11 posts frtr sweepers under the Nereducherla Municipality, and one t;anctioned post each for the categories of watchrrtan, Office Subordinate, Bill Collector, and lunior Assistan , the re by evidencing a total of 15 regular sanctioned post, However, the impugned order has been passed in a rnechanlcal 9 SN,J w.P.No.28438 2022 manner, without considering the clear recommendations made in favour of the petitioners vide proceedings dated

09.O]-.2O2L, as well as the sanctioned post details furnished prior to the formation of the Nereducherla Municipality, as indicated in the District Panchayat Officer's letter dated

08.11.2021 addressed to the Commissioner, Nereducherla Municipality.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 16.09.2022 is contrary to the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 02.05.2018 passed in W.P. No. 33936 of 2017, and is also inconsistent with the respondent's own record. Therefore, the impugned order dated 16.09.2022 is liable to be set aside and the writ petition needs to be allowed as prayed for.

8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, contends that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition, in view of the fact that there are no clear vacancies available in the 10 SN,I W.P ,r -2 8418 2022 Nereducherla r'4unicipality. Therefore, the reqt,'1;t of the petitioners for regularization cannot be consider::d in terms oF G.O.l4s.No.2l2 dated 22.04.1,994 and the pet tirners are not eligible to seek regularization of their servicer' . ue to the non'existenc,r of clea r vacancies.

9. The iudoment of the ADex Cou 11: dated 2O.12.2O24. reoorted in 2O24 LawSuit(SC.L 1209 in Jaqqo Anita and othe v. union of India a rrl others and the relevant Dara o I aoh Nos.12. L3. 24. "'!.6,27 28 are extracted hereunder: "12. Despite being labelled as "part-t me workers," the appellants performed thcse essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging flotn over a decade to nearly two decades. Tl'elr engagement was not sporadic or tempol ery in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regu a r-, and akin to the responsibilities typic;rlly associated with sanctioned posts. Moreo'er, the respondents did not engage any ot 1(:r personnel for these tasks during lhe appellants tenure, underscoring ll'e indispensable nature of their work. ere sDO The claim bv ndents I;hirt 13. these were not reoular Dosts lacks merit , ils the nature of the work Derformed bv tt e aooellants was Dere nial and fundamenterl l:o the functioninq of the offjces. The recut l I 11 sN,l W.P.No.28438 2022 nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants'termination demonstrates the in heren t 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 ent,tled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees oT 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 iudiciary's role in rectifvinq such misclassifications and ensurino that workers receive fair treatment,

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice oF backdoor entries 72 SN,J W.P.1'o .28438 2022 and ensure appointments adhered : l constrtutronal pnnciples, it is regrettable that ts pnnciples are often misinterpreted or misapp el to deny legitrmate claims of long ser\ 'l J employees. This judgment aimed to distingtrisl betwe€ln "illegal" and "irregular" appointme'1:: . It cateqoricallY held that emDloYees -I1 irreqular aDDoint ments. who were enqalle i in dulv sanctioned Dosts and had ser','ed continuouslv for more than ten vears shol rld be considered for reoularization as a or tc - However, the laudable intenl of rme measur the lud(lment is being subverted when institut )rs rely on rts dicta to ind iscriminately reject :he claims ,:f employees, even in cases where tlleir appointments are not illegal, but merely 3( k adherence to orocedural formalities. Governntelrt departrnents often crte the judgment in Uma I- e./l (supra) to arque that no vested right lo regulanzation exists for temporary employ: e;, judgment's ex[) ]c tt overlooxing the acknowledgment of cases where regularizatiott is appropriate. This selective aoolication disttl rls and ourDo s,L sDtrit effectivelv weaponizino it aoainst emDlovts(ls who have rendered indisoensable servlccls over decades. iudoment's

27. In light of these considerations, in ,r lr opinion, it is imperative for governr e.lt departments to lead by example in providing r. ir and stable employment. Engaging workers or a temporary basis for extended periods, espe( a y \.,vhen treir roles are integral to the organizat lr s Functioning, not only contravenes internati()-al labour standards but also exposes t.lre organiTation to Iegal challenges and underm n()s employee morale. BY ensuring f a ir employment practices, governnte 1t institutions can reduce the burden cf 13 SN,J W,P.No.28438 2022 unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and upJrold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. 2A, In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated

27.IO.20la are quashed; ii. The appellants shall be taken back on duw forthwith and rvt sre ularised 1r llants shall not he r the a Hotfleve l} entitled pecuniarv benefits/back wa es for the Deriod thev have not wor ked for but would be entitled to continuitv of services riod and fhF <ame for rhe said would be counted for their post- retiral benefits." DE

10. Th e

31.O1.2025 reoorted in 2025 INsc 144 in "SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM. GHAZIABAD", iN 1,4 SN,] W-P l, o.28438 2022 Darticul al, the relevant oara Nos.15 tct 19 are extracted h ereu nder: " 15, It is manifest that the Aopellant.--l t\Iorkme n continuousl v rendered their rvtces o!:el. several ore than a decade. vears, sometimes sDanninq in muster rolls were not orodrlci:d in full. Even if ce the EmDlover's fail re to furnish such 'ecords- desDite directi ons to do so-allowsa lr adverse labour ell-established inference Indian labo ur law stronql' disfavors iurisDrudence. DerDetual dailv-waqe or contractual enoa !tgments in circumstances where the work is oerrn,rnent in nature. Morallv and leoallv. workers who fulfil onooino municiDal reouirements vear rrfter vear cannot be dismisse d summarilv as d iglrensable. oarticularlv in the absen ce of a oenuine cr)ntractor aqreement. At this juncture, it would be aplrcpriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite 't(tmporary" employment practices as done by a recent jud(lement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in tlre following paragraphs: t- "212. The pervasive mlsuse of temporary (ln'tployment contracts, as exempliFled in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adver!;ely affects workers' rights and job security. In tfe private sector, the rise of the gig economy h.t= led to an rncrease in precarious employment ararlgements, oFten characterized by lack of benefits, iot) security, and fair treatment. Such practices h,lve been criticized for exploiting workers and (rndermining labour standards. Government institutior., entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness arrd justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such f , 15 s N.l W. P. No.28438 2022 exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operationS.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 evade long-term oblrgations owed to employees. These practices ma nifest in several ways: I'lisuse of "Temporary" Labels: Emplovees a enqaqed for work that is essential, recurrinq, and inteqral to the functioninq of an institution are often labelled as "temporarv" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror reoular emplovees. Such those of misclassification deprives workers of the diqnity, securiw, and benefits that reqular employees are entitledlo-4esoite oerforminq identical 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. sN'j w.,:. N o.28438 2022 They remain stagnant in their rolei, creating a systemic disparity between them and tlteir regular counterparts, despite their contribt.rt ons being eq ua lly sig nifica nt. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles pt:rformed by temporary employees, effectively repl: c ng one set of exploited workers with another. Thi!i )ractice not only perpetuates exploitation but also l( monstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the oblig rtion to offer regular employment. . Denial of Basrc Rights and Benefit: r Temporary employees are often denied fundam,: n.al benefits such as pensron, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their lenure spans decades. This lack of social security t;ut)jects them and their families to undue hardship, €specially cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumsta nces. "

15. The High Court did acknowledge tl-: Employer's inability to justify these 3brupt terminaiions. l-cnsequently, it ordered re-engagement on daiiy wage! with some measuTe oF parity in minrmum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant \ iotkmen were left in a marginally improved yet still unc(:r:ain status. While the High Court recognized the imporl:.r ce of their work and hinted at eventual regularizatior lt failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningftil track wages commensurate with the deqree of statu-:rry violation evide nt on record. t] 5N,J W.P.No.28438 2022

17. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law princlples. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev were enoaoed in i; al t releo ated to Deroetual un€ ertaintv. whil e conce rns of munt cioal budo et and co oliance with recru itment rule merit consider on, such concerns do not e n neqate equit ble enti tlements. Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trumo the leo itim te rioh rved continuousl vindefa cto wor men who have reoular roles fo r an exte nded oeriod. o cH h -attt rt- to fhe der oft 18. The tm f,lI raned extent thev confine the AoDellant Workmen to future ntinuiw or enoaqe ent wi hout dailv-waoe mea inoful back wao s, is he bv set aside wit followino directions: I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their terrnination, for all purposes, including senioriry and continuity ln service. 18 SN,J W.P tlo )8438 )O22 II. The Respondent Employer shall r'irrstate the Appellant Workmen in iheir respectiv r posts (or posts akin to the duties they prevtouslv l,erformed) withrn Four weeks from the date of tht. ludgment. Their entire period of absence (from tlte date of termination until actualle!nstatemelr! ) shall be counted for co tinuitv of servi<:e and all conseouential benefits, such as se ljoritv and eli oibitiw for oromotions ifa III. Considering the length of service, lrt' Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o of th,, t ack wages from the date of their d iscontin u atiorr until their actual reinstatement. The Responde-t Employer shall clear- the aforesaid dues withln t'rr.te months trom the date of their reinstatement J sts. In assessin IV. The ResDonclent Ennplover is d rected to initiate a fair and transDarent rcess for !t! reqularizinq the ADpellant v{orkEe!t_within six months from the date of reinstatr: nrent, duly considerinq the fact that thev havrl rerformecl I duties akin to I ermanent oerennial munici ,{ion, the r Employer shall not imoose edutt! tional or procedural criteria retroactivel\t-._ if srreh reouirements were never aoolillg. to the Aooellant Workmen or to similar !r situ ated reqular emolovees in the Dast. Tc, the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are requilled, the Respondent Err pl oyer shall expedite all necessarv administrative orocesses to ensure these lonqtime emplovlre s are not indefinitelv retained on dailv waoe!; contra ry to statutorv and eouitable norms. 1,9 SN,J W.P.No.28438 2022

19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nrgam Ghaziabad are dismissed.,,

11. T J d of th 19 .08 .202s Dassedi Civi lAo A ex No.8 58 20 1a e 2 2S cc NLI E l7 "D ar si qh v. Sta of u.P. and not et". IN f v n r N I n 2O ar extracted hereunder: "19. Having regard to the lon9, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the materiai indicating vacancies and comparator regularisatjons, we lssue the tollowing directions: i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts: All appellants shall stand regularized with effect frcm 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commissron and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this pur-pose, the State and the successor establishment (U. p. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class_III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-lV ( peo n/Attenda nt/G ua rd or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant snall be placed at not 20 SN,I W.F.\o 28418 2022 '( r the less than the mrnimum oF the regular pay-scal€ post, with protection of last-drawn wages if hiqt)er and the appellants shall be entitled to the sub'e,luent incremer.rts in the pay scale as per the pay gr.rCe. For seniority and promotion, service shall count fr':,r'r the date oF regularization as given above. ii. Financial consequences and arrear:t: Each appe lant shall be paid as arrears the full dlif=-cnci: between (a) the pay and admissible allowance:, ,rt the mrnimum of the regular pay-level for the pc;: From time to time, and (b) the amounts actually 1:;tti, for the period from 24.O4.2002 until the (,,rle oF reg u la ri:zation/retireme nt/dea th, as the case r''. y be. Amounts already paid under previous rteTim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arreilrs shi'rll be released within three months and if in deF,t u t, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interes: ilt 606 per annum from the date of default until paym, ir iii. Retired aooellants: Anv aDoellant u,ho has alreadv retired shall be oranted reqular rz ation with effect Jrom 24.04.2002 until the (late of suoerannuation for oav fixation, arrearr; rrnder clause (ii), and recalculation of oension, ,:g-.,rtuitv and other terminal d es. The revised oensr on and terminal dues shall be oaid within three nonths of this f udoment. iv. Decease d a l,Dellants: In Aooe llant No. 5 and anv othe the c,r,.S e ol r aooellant v 1.! o has 21, s N,l W.P.No.28438 2022 died durino oendenev, hislher representatives on record shall be oaid the arrears under clause ( ii) uD to the date of death, tooether with all terminal / retiraI dues recalculated consistentlv with clause (i). within three (nonths of this Judoment. v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shali file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this ludgment.

20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technica lities, rolling " reco nsiderations, " administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed trmelines, and veriFiable cornpliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footrng, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for 22 5N,J W.P Lc.28438 202 2 these workers. The operative scheme we have sCl rere comprlsrng of creation of sUpernumerary posl t. tuli regulariration, subsequent financial benefits, ,lnd a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a p.rl-way designed to convert rights into outcomes . i( to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transp. r,lncy in administration are not matters of gracc, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 : r the Constitution of India. "

12. The ADex Court in the iudqment r ported in (2O2O) l SCC (L&S) in Prem Sinqh v Statr] of Uttar Pradesh and others. at Dara 36 held as under': "36. Thr:re are some of the employees who h: v 3 not been regularized in spite of having rendel'c the servic(-.s for 30-40 or more years whereas th(:v have been superannuated. As they have worked rr th(, work-charged establishment, not againsr any particular project, their services ought to have: been regularrzed under the Government instructir -s and even a:; per the decision of this Court in :,fate oF Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court I the said decision has laid down that in case servic('!i have been rendered for more than ten years with() - [ the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measr. r(r, the services be regularized of such employees Ir. the facts of the case, those employees who have Nlrked for ten years or more should have been regula'iz,.d. It would not be proper to regulate th(r'lr for consideration of regularization as others hai',, been regularzed, we direct that their services be tr(,rted as a regu ar one. However, it is made clear tf rt they shall not be entitled to claimrng any dues of di'f ir-enc(l 23 5 N,J W. P.No-284 38 2022 in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entrtled to receive the pension as if they lgyg retired from the reqular establishment and the services rendered bv them rioht from the dav thev entered the work-charoed establishment shall be counted as qualifvinq service for Durpose of Dension."

13. The ADex Court in the case of Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily waqe EmDloyees Association vs. state of Karnataka reported in 199O(2) SCC Paqe 396 laid orinciole that the State should not keeo a Derson t r n eriod an have to treat such oersons as reoular one. L4. Para No,53 of the of the iudoment of the ADex Cou rt ln the State of K rnataka and others vs A Umadevi, dated 10.04.2006 reported in (2006) 4 scc 1 is extracted hereunder:- L scR 12 "53. One asDect needs to be clarified. There mav be cases where irreoular aoDointments (not illeqal aDDointments) as exDlained in S.v. NaravanaDDa 1967 u 1979 4 scc 507 and referred to in oara 15 above, of dulv oualified Dersons in dulv sanctione d vacant oosts mioht have been made nd the emolovees have continued to work for ten vears or more but without the N B.N. Na ara an )_4 SN,J W. P. h o. -184 38 2022 I e urts or o l__!.ribunals. intervention of orders of the The ouestion of requ arization of the servi !te s of such to be considered or I merits in emoloYees mav hav lrt in the the liqht of the Drinci Dles settled bv this (: or of this cases abovereferred to and in the lic h! ndia, the .I State Govern ments and instru nentalities should take steDs to reoularize as :r one-time s of such irreoularlv apoointed, measure, the servi who have worked for ten vears or mo6r in dulv sanctioned Dosts but not under cover of o i d.:rs of tit: courts or of tribunal and should further !|n sure that reoular recruitments are undertaken t(t--fill those vacant sanctioned posts that reouire to tlq filled up, in cases where temoora rv emolovees or drr i waqers are beinq now emoloved. The rocess mu ;t be set in motion within six months from this date. .,-

15. The Aoex Court in udoment reoorterl in (20t7) I l SuDreme court cases 148, in State of [,u n iab and others vs Jaoiit Sinoh a nd others at Paras 54 and its sub-Daras ( r )(2) (3), of the said iudqmenl o bserved as under: "54 "The Full Bench of the High ''()urt, while adludicating upon the above controversy h.i concluded, that temporary employees were not enlttled to the minimirm of the regular pay-scale, merely fct rhe reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wager,, and regular employees were similar. The full bench howev:, made two excepttons. Temporary employees, who fell ir e'ther of the two e.xceptions, were held entitled to wiies at the mintmnm of the pay-scale drawn by regulz employees. rhe exceptions recorded by the full bench of tlte High Court tn tne trnpugned judgment are extracted here' l ler: 25 5N,l W.P.No 28438 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 all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. n ( 2) But if dailv wacrets, ad hoc or contractual aDoointees are not a ointed aoainst teoular sanctioned oosts and their services are availed with notion b t or its instrum sufficient lono oeriod i.e. for 70 vears, such dailY waoers, ad hoc or contractual aDoointees titled to minimu oft scale without anv allowa nces on assumotion that work of oerennial nature is o worked for such lo oeriod of time. an eoui ble rioht is created in such cateoorv of De ons. Their claim for reoularization. if an mav have to be considered seoaratelv in terms of leoallv Denissible scheme. (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 70 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months. "

16. The iudoment of the Dex Court reDorted in state of Karnataka and 2o1o(9) SCc 247 betwee others v M.L.Kesari and others, in oarticular, Daras 4 to 9 reads as under: 26 S N,.J W.P.tio 28438 2022 decision in 5t,ate of Karnataka v. Ltltdeyj_ was 4. Tbe epgrted 0-20Q6 (4 | :;CC 1) In relgler ed 9r1 10-420Q61r' Bench of this CoL t held that that ca5 e, a constitution appoint,nents made without following the dut )rocess or the rules relating to appointment did not contet anY right on th€) appointees and courts cannot :li ect their absorption, regularization or re- engagemettt nor make their service permanent, and the High Court tt) ?xercise of jurisdtction under Article 226 of the Constituti()n should not ordinanly issue directions for absorption, regL"a tzation, or permanent continuance unless the recruitmeit had been done in a regular mannert in terms of the :o)stitutional schentt-; and that the courts must be carefut i't ensuring that Lhey do not tnterfere undulY with t"e economic arrangement of its affairs by the 5:lte or its instru mentalities, nor lend themselves to be irt<t'-uments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional ,: n,1 statutory mandates. This Court further held that it '.emporary, contra(tual, casual or a daily-wage employle does not have a legal right to be made permanent unlcss he had been .tppointed in terms of the relevant i lles or in adhereqce of Articles 14 and 16 of the Con:;Lilution, This Court however made one exception to the above position and tht: same is extracted below : "53. One asDect needs to be clar ifted. There may be cases Whete jIregLtAI_-3,Ppointments (not illeoal appointmentsl as explailed in S.V. (7) SCR 1:r-al, R.Ar. NaravanaDDa f7967 Naniundaooa f7972 (7) SCC 40!l_L and B,N. Naqaraian t7979 (4) See SOZI aatl t eferred to in pata 75 above. of dulv oualifieq) tersons in cant Dosts miohl have been dulv sanctioned the emDlovees heve ( '.)-! ttlLged to made a work for ten vears or more but without the tntervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The ouestion of reaulari:2 a:ion of the mav have to be services of such emolo considered on merits in the l,i vl,t at the principles settled bv this Court ir1-,tie--lases )1 sN.j W. P. No.28438 2022 n abovereferred to and in the lisht of this f India u men t instrumentalities should take steps to reoularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irreoularlv aooo nted- who have worked for ten years ot more in dulv sanctioned Dosts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that ruit, those vacant enctioned Dosts t,'hat teouire to be filled uo. in cases where temoorarv emolovees or ddilY waders are beino now in motion Drocess must be emoloved, withtn s, months from this date...., "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against ' regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following condttions are fulfilled: (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the emploYee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuouslY fot more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are nor 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 2a sN,l W.1,t1o.28438 2022 underqoing the process of open comDetitive :;clrction, such appotntments are considered to be irregular. th( co (iii ) Umadevi cas a dutv u Governme nt or instrumentalitv. to tal(e ster,s to reoularize the senrices of those irreqt!lat-.1! aDDointed emD lovees wh had se th n ten vears witho ut Drotection of anv in terim orders of courts or tribunals. as a one-ti,tnc meas,rre. Umadevi. direc =atsure must bes t in motion within x month fron t lhe date of its decision (rendered on 7O.4.2006). one-ti eml benefit for m

6. Tltt term ' one-time measure, has to be t tr derstood .n its p!oper perspective. This would ncrmally fi,:,. n that after the oecision in l-Jmadev!, each departmcr,! or each instrurnentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepate a ltst of all casual, daily-wage or ad lt:t< epp16ruu, who have been working for more than ten /€ars without the intervention of courts and tribunals and sr,b,ect them to a process veflficatton as to whether they .re working against vacant posts and possess the requisitc lualification for the post and if sa, regularize their service:

7. At the end of six months from the date o,F clecision in UmadL,vi, cases of several daily-wage/,to hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. :.onsequently, several departments and instrumentalittps did not commence the one-time regularization proaa:s. On the other hand, some Government dep,.ttrnents or instrlJnenta lities undertook the one-tit.,t. exercise exclud;ng several employees from considera,.i).1 either on the ground that their cases were pending in ,:ourts or due to sheer o,/ersight. ln such circumstances, t,,,.? emplayees who were entitled to be considered in terms .)l para 53 of the decision in Umadevi, wi not lose the lght to be constdered far regularization, merely because !1,., one-ttme exerci.e was completed without considerinq tt)aU cases, or 5N,J W.P.No.28438 2022 because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily -wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of coufts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one- me exercise in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered.

8. The obiect behind the said direction in oara 53 of is to ensure that those Umadevi is two- fold. who haye p in more than ten vears of continuous t n n constitutional ot statu of courts or tribunals. be re the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for in view of their lono seruice. Second is requlariza to ensure that the departmen6/instrumentalities do not perpetuate the oractice of employino persons on dailv-waoe/ ad-hoc/casual for lono periods and then oeriodicallv reoularize them on the oround that thev have served for more than ten rs- thereb defeatins th Drovrstons ent. ThP tiuF aCJatc al worked for more than ten veats as on 70.4.2006 (the date of decision in Ltmadevi) without the protection of anv interim order of env court or tribunal- in vacant Dos ts, noccc<<ino lhe reo uisite ualificati'6tt - tion- Thc are entitled fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercrse of reoularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such xerctse was undertaken onlv in reoard to a limited few. will not disentitle such emDloyees, he rioht to be considered t. be considered for reou n ,itn ent and anoo tmn ,.ha Ai.a-?i^n i< 30 SN,J W.P tlo. )8438 2022 for reoularization in terms of the above dt:!.ections in Umadevtasao -time m sure,

9. These appeals have been pending for mor,: than four years alter the decision in Umadevi. The Ap,:e,lant (Zila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered th,. cases of respondents of regularization within six mor tt s af the deciston in Umadevi or thereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the Hiqh Court has d iected that the cases of respondents should be cor.siCered in accordance with law. The only further directior tiat needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila oznchayat, Gadag should now undeftake an exercise /,ithin six months, a general one- nme regularization exet :i:;e, to find out whether there are any daily wage/ca ;1, al/ad - hoc employees serving the Zila panchayat and if ;c whether such employees (including the respondents.t ,ulfilt the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umad:,v. If they fulfill them, their services have tc be regularizeo. 'i such an exercise has already been undertaken by tqnoring or omittinq the cases of respondents 1 to 3 bec:,use of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shal, \ave to be considered in continuaUon of the said one tir)t€ exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of tbra 53 of Umadevt, their services need not be regular;ed. If the employees who have cornpleted ten years ser ,,rr e do not possess the educational oualifications prescrit t d for the post, at the time of their appointment, thcy. may be considert:d for regularization in suitable lower DOSts. This appeal is disposed of accordinqty.

17. In th e ildqme nd others v ftheA Pex Cou tn Nih; rl Sinqh State of Pun a rted in 2013 t4 31 SN,] W.P.No.2a43A 2022 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 paid by the Eank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authority of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also refused to acceot the defence that there were no sanctioned Dosts and so there was iustification for the State to utilise services of larqe a ellants for dec .I held that "sanctaoned oosts do not fall from heaven" and that the State has to create them bv a conscious choice on the basis of some rataonal assessment of need. Referrinq to Umadev it held that the aDoellants before them were not arbitrarilv chqsen, their initial I 32 SN,J W. P.lr o.28438 2022 aDDointment was not an 'irrequ lar'aooointr n,3nt as it had been made in accordance w th the s tatuto rv Drocedu re orescribed under the Police Act, .!!!61. and the State cannot be heard to sav that th(:y are not ea b entitled to b sorbed into the servi ces ol: _the State on Derma nent basis as, accordino to ._-yt, their aDoointments were Durelv temDorarY and rl o1 aqai nst anv sanction ed Dosts created bv the State. !.t aras held that the udoment in Umadevi cannot l:ercome a licence for exDloitation bv the State and rtS the Gover n ment of instrumental ities and neither Puniab nor those oublic sector Banks can continue such a Dra ctice inconsistent with their ob i(tataon to f unction in accordanc with the Constitution. 1a. The iudoment t the ADex Court r(:I,orted in 2015 SCC online SC 1797 between B.Sriniva lusu and others v Nellore Municipal CorDoration l.eo. bv its Commissioner. Nellore District Andhra Prarlesh and others, in oarticular rasTandSr ads as rrrder: (7) bv ttte _Ujgh \A/e find lt dJtf! l![t la agcCpt theJeasci;t|g aelooted the aDDel!,1.!s to-_ssek No.212 datr;ti .2 4.1994 Court. The riqht cf tlarization flows from the G reg_L 2- 33 SN,J W P.No.28438 2022 The appellant have been in service of the first resDondent not a1lLpLto-t Ip the lssaqtee of _the SAlfl G!)-but even Subseouent to the issue of G.O. till todav. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants.

8. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the 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 Court in District Collector/Cha irperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 480.

19. In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar reDorted (2O15) 8 SCC 265, the Suoreme Court held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularisation of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appoantments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure security of emDlovment of those persons who had served the State Government and their n for more than ten ears". In case, emploYee u{aE lt{Ql'kinq for 29 vears. This 14 SN,J W.P llo )8438 2022 decision aDDroves earlier view exDr(::5 sed M. L.Kesara extracted above. State of Jarkh and v Kamal Prasad r rlE,orted in (2014) 7 SCC 223 stml ar view was takl!t! bY the Suoreme Court and it was held s follows "47.... In view of the cateoorical find no ef fact on the retevant contentious issue thet the resDondent r serlf t(',=_- for more emolovees have continued in vears continuouslY thetefore. lhe leqal than 70 DrinciDle laid down bY this Court in Ufil zdevi case )4St :( 7 : 2006 (State of Karnataka v llmadevi (20 li.rs to the ra EA <d a Dresent cases. Ihe Division Bench of the.Hiqh Court ndent emt?ll tYees are has riahtlY held that the entitled for the relief. the same cannot bc interfered with bv this Court." /, 2<l 73 at

21. The ludgment of this Court dated CtG 12.2022 passed in W.P.No.276O2 of 2O19 which pe'tains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi ltlitrasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda Distract, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of thir; Court in w.A.No.937 of 2023 dated 1O.1o.2023 :rnd also confirmed by the order of Apex Coutt dated O9.Oa.2O24 in SLP No.32847 at 2024. 35 S N,J W.P.No.28438 2022

22. The iud oment of the Aoex Court in Hari Kri sh na n ir Tr t V. State of h n Othe reoorted in AIR 2O2O Suoreme Court 3969 and in oarticular oara Nos.lOO and 101 hel as follows: "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitutron of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of utv-bound to exercise such ma nda m us, but are h Governme x rcrse nferr du o n n u h rl r a rule a oolicv decis ion of the Government or as exercised such discre on m a a t trre evant consideration,

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."

23. A bare perusal of the record clearly indicates that, way back on 09.O1.2O21, proposals were forwarded by the Commissioner, Nereducherla Municipality, Suryapet District i,e., 5th respondent addressed to the Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Telangana, Hyderabad, i.e., 3'd respondent recommending the regularization of 36 5N,l W.P.l' rr 28438 2022 the services of the petitioners along with t\/,/() others, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.1)'1.1994.

24. A bare perusal of the contents of the le:tl:er dated

08.11.2021 issued by the District Panchayal: Officer, the Com nrissioner, Nalgonda, addressed to Nereducherla Municipatity, i.e., 6th respond')llt clearly indicates that a detailed statement pertainirrg to the regular sanctioned posts under the O1O-H'-'ad in the Gram Panchayats of the erstwhile Nerrr:ducherla Mandat, Suryapet District, vv65 f91ry3rdr:<l to the Commissioner, Nereducherla Municipality, The said statement reflects the exastence of 1O s;r nctioned posts in Nereducherla Mandal (presently part of Suryapet District). However, the Respol'rdent No'3 failed to take into account the fact, asi borne on record, that the Nereducherla Gram Panr:hayat had subsequently been upgraded to a Muni<:ilrality and that the sanctioned posts continued to remain in existence, However, disregarding ltre clear recommendations made by 5th respondent irr favour of the petitioners vide proceedings dated 09'O1'2021 and the details furnished through the afo resaid letter t 31 SN,I W.P.No.28438 2022 dated 08.11.2O2L ot the District Panchayat Officer. Nalgonda, addressed to the respondent No.6 herein, the respondent No.3 issued the impugned proceedings dated L6.O9.2()22 in a mechanical, routine, and casual manner, which is contrary to the spirit and intent of the interim orders passed by this Court in the present writ petition.

25. This Court opines that the pleas put forth vide the impugned proceedings dated 16.09.2022 of the respondent No.3 that there are no sanctioned posts and that there should be clear vacancies had already been considered in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and held to be untenable by the Apex Court

26. This Court opines that the petitioners are entitled For grant oF relief as sought for in the present writ petition, in light of paragraph No.53 of the judgment of the Apex Court in "Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi" (referred to and extracted above), as well as the observations made in the recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (referred to and extracted above). This Court is of the firm opinion that the relieF sought for by the petitioner was 38 SN,] !\/ ,.No 28438 2022 rejected in a mechanical manner, without prc r()r application of mind, and contrary to the respondent,s or,,r record, in a casual and routine manner. Therefore, this ._c urt is of the considered view that the subject is;sue requires reconsideration by respondent No.3 herein, n the light of the observations of the Apex Court in t rr: judgments referred to and extracted above arrd also the proposa ls/recom mendations for regularizatior c f the service the petitioners forwarded vide proceedings Lr.Roc.No.C1l79/202I dated 09.01.202t of t rr: respondent No.6 addressed to respondent No.3 an(_ the details furnished vide letter dated 08.11.2021 ot the District Panchayat Officer Nalgonda addressed to t-re respondent No.6, in accordance to law and appropriate r_ rrjers need to be passed within a reasonable period.

27. TAKING INTO CONSIDE RAT ON: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstitnces of the case a nd/ b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners anr:l rf ri Ramesh 39 .SN,J W P. No.284 38 2022 Chilla, learned Standing Counsel for Service matters appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The interim orders of this Court dated

07.O7.2022 passed in the present writ petition, d) The impugned proceedings R.O.C.No.464766/2O22/A3 dated L6.O9.2O22 of the respondent No.3 (referred to and extracted above), e) The clear recommendations in favour of the petitioners for regularization of service of the petitioners herein along with two others vide letter dated 09.O1.2O2L to the Commissioner, Nereducherla Municipality, Suryapet District addressed to the Commissioner and Director of Municipal administration Telangana, Hyderabad, f) The contents of the letter dated O8.11.2O21 of the Dastrict Panchayat Officer, Nalgonda addressed to the Commissioner, Nereducherla Municipality enclosing the statement indicating the details of 1O sanctioned posts of the Gram Panchayat, Nerreducherla Mandal ( presently suryapet District) 1\ 40 S N,J W.P.'Jo 28438 2022 which is contrary to the reasons mention€rd impugned proceedings dated 16,O9.202,2 of the in the respondent No.3 herein (referred to and r:xtracted above), S) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracl:ed above) and again as enlisted below: (i) (2o2o) l scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2o24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 2010(9) SCC 247 (vii) (2013) 14SCC 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (201s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 sCc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 sCC 1 (xiv) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xv) Division Bench Judgment of the Higlr Court of Telangana at Hyderabad dated 02.O5.2018 passed in W.P.Nos.3:1936 of 2011 and batch. 47 sN,l W.P.No.28438 2022 (xvi) 2O25 SCC ONLINE SC 1735 The writ petition is allowed and the order impugned passed by the respondent No.3 vide proceedings No.464766 / 2022/ A3 dated L6.O9.2O22 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent No.3 for reconsideration of the request of the petitioners for regularization of their service as Public Health Workers/Bill Collectors/Tractor Driver with effect from the cutoff date prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 with consequential benefits by taking into consideration of the proposals made by the 6th respondent Lr.Roc.No. CL/79/2O2L dated O9.01.2O21 addressed to the respondent No.3 and also the vacancies as indicated in the letter dated 08.11.2O21 of the District Panchayat Officer, Nalgonda addressed to the Commissioner, Nereducherla Municipality in the respondent No.6 herein and the observataons of the Apex Court and other Courts in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and pass appropriate orders within a period of four(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in ( / f i w r, \ , 28,138 2022 accordance to law in conformity with the p -inciples of natural justice duly examining the do<:u ments in support of the petitioner,s case and duly co m municate the decision to the petitaoners herein. How,e,/er, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pendin:1 shall stand closed That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as abcve. Witness THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE APARESH KtlM AR SINGH, on this Wednesday, The Second Day Of July Two Thousand .l\r d Twenty Five //TRUE COPY' .IJD/- MOHD. ISMAIL , :)t:PUTY REGISTRAR ] SECTION OFFICER \ To, ONE FAIR COPY TO THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPT:.Ll.l NANDA (FOR HER TADYSHIPS KIND PERUSAL}

1. The Principal Secretary, f\/unicipal Administrator anr; Jrban Deveiopment Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabarl.

2. The Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Departr-e1t, Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hydera bad.

3. The Commissioner and Director Telangana, A.C. Guards, of Municipal Adrninistration, State of

4. The Regional Director-cum-Appalate Commiss,tr er of Municipal Administration, Hyderabad Regeion, Hyderabad. 5. The District Collector, Suryapet District, Suryapet. 6. The Commissioner, Nereducherla Municipality, Ncre ducherla, Suryapet District.

7. One CC to SRI S JAGADISH, Advocate. IOPUCI 8. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES ll, High Court for tlre State of Telangana. 9, One CC to SRI P.AMESH CHILLA, SC FOR SERVICE \/I\TTERS. [OPUC] 10.11 LR.Copies '1 1. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, J tstice and Company \

12.The Secretary, Advocates' Association Library, l.igh Court Buildings, Affairs, New Delhi Hyderabad

13.Two CD Copies BSK -\, ^$ _ T HIGH COURT DATED:0210712025 CC TODAY ('r. .-,;,-l \li ( \:.. ,,-...' r.. ]: i 4ltirlti 56 ) ti. \1, ,, <// 'i. >? _il\. ORDER WP.No.28438 of 2022 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS