tvld. Rabiya Bee v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents herein to treat the temporary contingent appointment of the petitioner provided on compassionate grounds vide Proc. No. A3/104197, dated 17-06-1997 by Sth respondent as per GO Ms. No.687 dated 03-10-1977 as regular one in the last grade post forthwith by paying last grade time scale benefits to the petitioner from the date of appointment. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH.GANESH Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: AGP FOR SERVICES-I Counsel for the Respondent No.4 & 5: SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT The Court made the following: ORDER 3 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA SN, J wp-25397_202t ORDER; Heard sri ch' Ganesh, tearned counset appearing on behatf of the petitioner, tearned Assistant Government Pleader for panchayat Raj Rurat Deveropment, appearing on beharf of the respondent Nos.l and 3 and sri s. suman, learned Assistant Government preader for Finance and Planning/ appearing on beharf of respondent No.2 and sri Pradeep Reddy Katta learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4. ,

2. as under: ""'to issue an order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to decrare the in action of the respondents in not regularizing the temporary appointment provided to the petitioner on compassionate grounds in the year 7997 as per Go Ms. No. 687 dated 03-10-1977 to ti, date by paying starving wages of Rs. t623/_ per month from 24 long years ignoring regitimate wages payabre to the petitioner as per section 13 and 15 of Minimum wages Act, 1948 and Section 4 of Equar Remuneration Act, 1976 R/w Article L4, L6, 2L, 39 (d), 43 & 300 (A) of our Constitution, i \ 4 SN' J wp]5391-021 as highly iltegal, unjust' unfair and violation of the provisions of the said Acts and our Constitution and prays to direct the respondents herein to treat the petitioner as a regular one in the last grade post from the date of appointment :' iol'']:n the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C'A' No' 67g8of 2019 dated 02-09-2019 in the case of Prem Singh Vs. state of U.p. (2019 (1) scc 516) and with further direction to release all the consequential monetary benefits of the last grade post w'e'f' t7-O6-1997 to till date from time to time with 100 percent compensation on arrears of pay as per the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA No. 34LO 3445 of 2010 dated L}-02-2OL9 in the case of Union of India Vs' Avatar Chand (2019 3 ALD SC 32) by awarding heavY cost and Pass"'"

3. PCRUSED THE RECORD:- -: 5 SN, J wp_25397_2021 4

5. forth in the o.esunt w.it petition by *av of a detrired I I 6 SN' J wp 25397 2021 reasonable oeriod'

6. No.4

7. "0""n "36. There are some of the employees who have not been retutarizea in spite of having rendered the services for 30- 4Qormorey"u.,*n"reast-heyhavebeensuperannuated. Astheyhaveworkedinthework.chargedestablishment, notagainstanyparticularproject,theirservicesoughtto regularized under the Government instructions nu"" andevenasperthedecisionofthisCourtinStateof Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This court in the said decision has laid dgwn that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the covei of the Coult's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten yeafs 0f mlfe shourd have been regurarized. It-wourd not be proper to regurate them for consideration of regurarization ls others have been reoutarized,;;-;;;.;l t..r their services be treared as a .LouFI-;;.":';;'"il" it is made ctear that thev sha' not be- entitred io il;;i;g anv dues of difference 7 in wages had they been contin ued in service regu larly before attai ning the age of su perannuation. Th ey shallbe entitled to receive the pensi on as if they SN, J wp:25397_2021 ,f

9. hereunder:- ( r 8 SN, J wp_25391-O2l

10. hereunder: *12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers,; the apfellants performed these essentiil tasks on a daily and continuous Oisis over extensive periods, ranging flom or", a decade to nearly two decades' Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary -na-ture, instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. MoreoYer, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underSCOring the indispensabte nature of their work. 9 SN, J wp_25397_2021

13. The m hv the resDonde The recurring necessitates their nature of these duties classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy thit subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent nebO 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 LLBT (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a Pertinent example from the Private sector, illustrating the conseq uences of misclassifying emPloYe.es to circumvent Providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certai n workers as indePendent them emPloYee contractors, therebY denYing benefits. The U.S. Court of AP peals 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 the practice of hiring temporarY adopted employees or indePen dent contractors as a means of avoiding PaYment of employee benefits, therebY increasing their profits. This judg ment underscores of the work le that the nature the princiP rather than the label assig ned to the performed, worker, sho uld determine emPloYment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. & l0 wp_25397 J SN, 202

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra ) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor e ntries and ens ure appointments adhered to constituti onal principl es, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misa pplied to deny legitim ate claims of Iong serving emplbyees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal,' appointments. "irregular" , time measure. However the laudable intent of the judgment is bei ng subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminatel y reject the claims of emp loyees, even in cases where their appointments are nof illegal, but merely lack adherence to proced ural formalities. Go vernment departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested ridht to regularization exists for temporary em ployees, overlooking explicit acknowledgment of cases where regula rization is appropriate. judgment's t decades.

27.. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for goul.nment departments ro read by exampre in pi*iJing'rui. and stable emplo_yment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extende"d periods, especiary when their roles are.integ.uiio tne organila;on,s fu.nctioning, not only .6ntr*"n", international labour standards but irro tne organization to legal challenges and undermines employee Tg.?!.. By ensurins i"i, practicesr gov€rnmenl ".pi"iil"t institutions can reduce the burden of ,nn""."sary titigation, "*poses l1 SN, J wp_25397_2021 promote iob security, and uphold -th' 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 iollow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country' In view of the above discussion and 28. findings, the appeals are allowed' The impugned o.Outi passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and th" original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 .10.2018 are quashed; ii.

11. "15. retiral benefits." / / t2 SN, wp_25397_202 J aoreement. At this juncture, it wourd be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite ,,temporary,, employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of rndia in the forowing paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary emproyment contracts, EtS exemplified in this .id", reflects a broader systemic issue that adversety affects workers, rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious emptoyr"nt uriung"rents, often chara.cterized by rack, of benerits, jJo security, and fair treatment. Such p.acti."l criticized for exproiting workers uno undermining labour standards. Goveinment institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairnes, uni';;;r:=": bear an even greater responsibitity to avoid such exploitatir". emptoyment practices. When public "t"rporary sector entities engage in misuie oc contracts, it not onry mirrors the detrimentar trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can eiode puOiii trust in governmenta I operations. ,iur" l3 SN, J wp_25397 _2021

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often iace multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 scc onLine sc 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: oM use of "TemDo rv" La Emol s " even en their identical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in tne 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 ofte-n 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 contributio,ns being equally significant. . Using outsourcing aS a Shield: Institutions increasiigly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary ernployees, effectively replacing o.ne set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates ( / / _-.r,'4(ii:j - ,-., ,:-.ai--:--- ,- .' _a ;-: _r- _ -:_ t4 SN, J wp_25397 _2021 a deliberate effort to bypass the obrigation to offer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamentat bJnerits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This rack of sociar security subjects them and their famiries to undue hardship, eipeciatty in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumsta nces.,'

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer,s inabirity to justify these abrupt terminations. consequenfly, it ordered re-engagement on dairy wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettabry, this onry perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant workmen were left in a marginatly improved yet still uncertain status. while the High court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventuar regurarization, it faired to afford them continuity of service or meaningfur back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record. 17. In light of these Employer's discontinuation of the stands in violation of the most basic rabour raw principres. once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the u.p. Industriat Disputes Act, L947, and that considerations, the Appellant Workmen i i t. i1 I l5 SN, J wp_25397 _2021 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, L947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment' III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their ,I/t 1 . :,1 i 1'.:".i1i11.1,1:".:' ' i i I l l I I I I I I l i l I i i I i I ! I I :! :i :ii ,tl I ll ii! l:i: I,i, il[ t6 SN, J wp_25397 _2021 actuar reinstatement. The Respondent Emproyer shail clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement.

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

12. "54 "The Fu' Bench of the H.igh court, whire adjudicating -cgntrovgrsy iaa -roiaiaJi,.,,inZ, upon the above bmporary employees were not entirei t, th" minimum ,r iii" regutar pay_ scare, mererv for the ,":uiii, ii,Jt ,n" activitiei'-carried on by daily_wageri and regutar "iito-iJi, were simitar. The fuil bench \ \\, \ t7 SN, J wp 25397_2021 however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the futt bench of the High Court in the impugned iudgment are extracted hereunder:- "(1) A daity wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after u-ndergoing a ietection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitted to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale uftu, more than three years and two months of completion of 10 years of continuous workifr9, d daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be e.ntitled to urrZurt for a period of three Years and two months"'

13. under:

4. The clecis;ion in State of Karnataka v. Llma€levi was rendered on lO.4iOd ported in 2006 G) SCC 1). I! -that -case:.1 constitution Bench of this court held that appointmen$ maoe n i 1 l8 SN, J wp_25397 202t -ordinariry without foilowing the due process or the rures rerating to appointment did ,.not colfer any right on ih" Jppointees and courts cannot direct their absorplion, regubrLation or re_ engagement nor make their servicu p"r*uient,-and the High court in exercise. of iurisdiction under Arcicie 226 of the constitution shourd not issue airectiiis for absorption, regutarization, or permanent continuar:;; ;;i;;; ihe recruitment had been done, in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutionar scheme; and Tnat the ,ori, i,uri- ou carefur in ensuring that they do not interfere undury with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the Sfafe or its instrumentalities, nor lend themserves to be instruments to faciritate the bypassing of the constitutionar and statutory mandates. This court further held that a temporary, contractuar, casuar o)r- a dairy-wage employee does not have a tegar right to be iui" permanent unless he had been appointed ln rcrms of the rerevant rures or in adherence of Articres 14 and 16 of the coistitutiin. This court however made o.ne exception to the abovi iiiition and the same is extracted below : t9 sN, r wp-25392_202t l?j!:"i:l":";:'t"n.t lrom tou uru?u-:-th,at.there is an exception u*uiuii ;;;;;f::;,'f,:;;Xi;',:,; I enunciated in (i) The emptoyeS_concerned ,Oou,!!,,!"_111u,vo*e-A for 70 years or more in dutv salltioltei e;;;i;hoyt,the oiiirrt ir protection or the interim order .of "r;;;;;;,ir tribtLnat._ ;,;;;er words, the sfafe Government,or iis ;;;;;;?:tarity iniii.ir,uru emptoyed 'l:,, ;r : lW z : il, ;u:i,,""1' l::,.i n s e w i ce v o r u n t a r i i y Lir (ii) The appointme!.t. of such emproyee shourd not be iregar, even if irresutar..wnere- tie Z,ioo,ir.";;;";;",,)ot .iiii' ::;:#:;1 #:,:,':^'ui,iii,Ja"u/o,t, o, a:i i : i t ;i - * !:i:i'W :i ii:';,i:i: !;'::,{"F: # ^n t?;J?':':i",A,,t;:Wf lF;!i#*{;i:,"",::f ::i such appointmZnti a* ,[rrialr'.d" ro u" irregular, made or tnu persons 6' The term 'one-time measure, has to be understood in its proper perspective. This woutd normaily mean ,i"i"Jt":i iiZ decision in tJmadevi, eich aiiui*"nt or each instrumentarity should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a rist of ail casual, daily-waqe or ad noc emjioyees who nine been working for more than tzn years without the int.ilit,:ii zf courts and tribunats and subjea tn"i-ii ", pror"ri iz'iinzation as b whether they are workile uguitt uacant posts and possess fhe requisite quarification ror t-he post and'ir-ii,-ieluurize their services. ,( t(. r ( l ; ': ,ii ]i: i' t: { t: 1: l,: !r 20 SN, J wp 25391_021 emploYees 'iiti"i'oi-

7. At the end of six month.s from the date of decision in umadevi, cases or ii'"'ui auitv-*Zo"ti 1o'131'suat were stitl pend'in-g-'iuro'" coiit'' Consequently' several deoartmert, una" iiirti"i"nlatitiei aia not commence the one- time resutarizail;;"';;;i;;"i - oi me other hand' some '' l'i'i,i't emptovees from Governmentaepirtm'entso'in't'"ientalitiesundertookthe consideration eitiZi onlii groi( ihat their cases were pending one-time "*"ii'i"'-'eicluding in courts o, au""iJ ;;;;; ;rjnisni:. 7i- s;uch circu mstances' the emptoyees whg iu""i'ziiiiii ,o- ii io,ntia"r"d in terms of Para tose their right to be 53 of the ctecrsiri''ir-- iiadevi, considered for regularizatiol, m'e'rely because"the one-time exercisewasroiji"t"ayitltorltconsideringtheircases,or because the six i[,ti-i",ioa .iniinii i, pira 5j of tJmadevi has expired. Thte one-time exerci,isi snoutd consider all daily- wage/adhoc/thoie employe"' iii iua put in 10 years of continuou, ,"iir"-'iZ bn ..O'.i.ZOOA without availing the orotectionofanyinterimordersofcourtsortribunals,Ifany ,employernaanJutheone-timeexerciseintermsofpara53of cases of some employees who t)madevi, o,t aiii-nii 'in'iae'-thi were entitted ti-tii-binefit or puri ss of umadevi, the employer concerned ,nouii ,iiiider their.rr., also, as a..continuation of the one-time ixercise. The on" tiii- exercise witt oe concluded onty when att iii"i;;ptoiiu ,ryio i" entitted to be considered in terms or p"iiti oi umadevi, are so considered. \ \ i,-. i: :. -.. SN, J wp 25397_Z0Zl measure. g. These appeats have been pending for more than four years after the decision in llmadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of iigui;rirution within six months of the decision in umadevi or thereafter. 10. The Division Bench of the High court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The oniy further direction that needs be given, in view of umadevi, /s that the Zita Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily iigte/casuat/ad-hoc emptoyees serving the Zita Panchayat uld ll so'whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfll! the requirements mentioned in para 53 of tJmadevi. If they fulfill thbm, 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 fo iay that if the respondents do not fulfilt the requirements of Para 53 of tJmadevi, their services need not be regularised' If the employees who have completed ten years service do not lottutt th'e educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at 'the time of their appoi'ntment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. t4. ancl others v. State of Puniab reoorted in (2O13) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose r ( ?' 22 SN, J \yp_25397 _2021 wages were paid by Banks at whose disposar their services were made avaitabre. rt herd that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank dld not render the appellants 'emptoyees, of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary contror vested with the state. rt herd that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter excrusivery 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 contractuat relationship, its action is arbitrary. @ 73 SN, J wp-25397_2021 bv the State. It was held that the iudgment in Umadevi accordance with the Constitution.

15. (7) We find it difficult to accept the reasoning adopted by the High C;wi. The right of the appellants to seek regularization Mihe c.b. tuo.ztz dated zz.q.Egq, rhe appeilant have been in seruice of the first respondent not only prior to the. G.O. but even subsequent to the issue of G.O. till today. The respondent MunicipalitlT being a statutory OoaV is oOtiged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentionea G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years I I j ,:' tI ,. ,.: , ,:1. r 24 SN, J wp_25397_2021 without regurarising the service of the appeilants and continued to extract work from the appeltants. B' In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.o. on the ground tha{ the apper^tits approached the rribunat betatedty, in ,u, ipinion, ii:iii jiriiri"a. rn the circum.stance, the appear is artoiea io'iiriing';;; order under appeal bv directinT, tha! the apperants' seii;"; ; regurarised with effect from the date or'fniir comptetiig- iL,, five year continuous service as was raid down by this court in District & others ir. r,t.t.'sinsh a- orr. 200s (B) |"i|r:;{chairperson

16. held that .The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregurar but not illegat, and to ensure appointm"ntr, which are irregular but not iltegal, and L7. 25 SN, J wp 25397_2021 It have continued in their service for more ,than 70 years continuously therefore. the leoal principle l?id down by this Court in llmadevi case (State of Karnataka v Umadevi intertered with bv this Court."

18. The Judgment of this Court dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.27602 of 2019 which pertains to regularizataon 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 10.1O.2b23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated

09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 ol 2O24-

19. "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, f 26 SN. J wp 25397 202t consideration. 101, In all such cases, the High court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to comper performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority.,,

20. observed as under:- "Further, it is manifest from the material on record that the services of the simirarry placed persons who approached the law courts were regularized. The appelrant-corporation arso issued various office orders/circulars dated zo.t).1ggg, 11.0g. Lggz, 06.10.2007 and ratest being 4.7.2oog for regurarization of casual/contract emproyees, It is also to be seen ttiat Section zi_ T of the ID Act prohibits unfair rabour practicl by any or workman. As can be seen from the factuar scenario iir [nu "rprovu. cases on hand, engaging the respondents for such a rong ano continuous period of time on casuar basis is nothing uut "unrair labour practice attracting the provisions of Section 25_T of the ID Act, The rearned singre :udge whire rerying on the decisions of the Apex c9urt, right|y herd [hat Ur" i"i'ponoents are entitred to regurarization as directed in the impuined ordeo, ii lr,. learned singre Judge considered ail the oi th";"i;";';; detail, in the proper perspective, which. i;;. considered view does not warrant interference in thes" ubpuuir. rr .,... "-rp;;i,

21. 27 SN, J wp_25397 _2021 reportecl in 2O18(2)ALD page 282 at para 16 and para 18 observed as under:- *16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article L4L of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in lJma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of L994 and G.o. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time absorption/regularization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. ThL Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of L994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in tJma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regularization/absorption exist. Therefore. Act 2 0f 1994 1oO and G.O. Ms. No.212. dated 22.+.i994. do not whittle down the width and the fudgment in Maniula Eashrni's case (supra)' dops npt iower the trajectory of the directions issued by the Suoreme Couri in Para 53 of its iudgment in Uma Devi's ca,se csupra). It is, therefore, not permissible for the res,pondents to take shelter under Act z of tg94 and G.o. Ms.- No.212. dated 22.4.1994. to deny regularizatipn -to the pEitioners, who have' admittedlv, satisfied tne Criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the iudgment in Uma Devi's case (supra).

18. For the aforementioned r€tssonS; order, dated 27'6'2017, in OA No.1442 of 20L4, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside this order." f ( r 28 SN, J wp_25397 2021

22. "45' There is no di:q'J" that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1gg0 and have put in armost (30) years of service by now. Tiey h.ave been given minimum time-scare from the year 2000. They have been- continuousry working without any court orders in their favour from 1gg0 tiil date.

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respo ndent rejecting the cases of petitioners for reg ularization of services on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and ZL of the Constitu tion of India; the copy of the order.,,

23. 29 SN, J wp25397 _2021 the reouest of the oetitioner for reqularization of oetitioner's services. who is workinq as full time continqent sweeper ancl further to consider her request to treat the temoorary service of the petitioner in the last gracte post of fult time sweeper as reqular one for all ourooses bv orantinq last grade pay with oeriodical appointment of the petitioner, in accordance to law.

24. This Court oDines that petitioner as entitled for consideration of Detationer's case for orant of the relief as oravect for in the present Writ Petition in view of the observations of the Apex Court in various iudoments (referrecl to anct extracted above) and the view of the Division Bench of this Court in the Judoments referred to and extracted above.

25. Takino into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behatf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5. 30 SN, J wp_25397_2021 c) The observations of the Apex court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: i)(2o20) 1 SCC (L&S) (ii) 1990(2) scc nage sso (iii) 2O2s rNsc ,44 (iv) 2024 Law Suit (sC) tz}g (v) (2oL7) 1 scC 14-8 (vi) 2010(9) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Ontine SC t7g7 (ix) (201s) 8 scc 26s (x) (zo14) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLp No.3ZB47 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scC 1 -(xiy)_zOLr (1) ALD, page 234 (-xv) 2O1B(2)ALD pag 1ez (xvi) 2ozo(4)ALD pise 379 The Division Bench order of this " d) Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in w.A.Nos .7g2 0f 2010 and 854 0f 2oL2 whire uptoading the Judgment dated og.0g.2010 passed in w.p.No.24377 0f 20'7 and c.c.No.4g of 200g (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this court dated 19'o9.2or7 passed in w.p.No. zrzt7 of 2or7 (referred to and extracted above), ? 3l SN, J wp_25397 2021 f) The Division Bench order of this court dated 2!,O4.2O20 passed in I.A.Nos. t of 2o2o in 1 of 2o19 and w.p.No.23057 of 2019 (referred to and extracted above). g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order. The writ Petation is atlowed, the petitioner is ctirectecl to out-forth the . claim of the petitioner for reqularization of petitioner's services, ancl also the claim of the oetitioner to treat the temoorarv serviceF of the Etition.er in the last qracle post of continqent Sweeper as reqular one for atl ourooses bv qrantino last qracle pav with oeriodical increments revisecl from time to time from the ctate of appointment of the petitioner and all conseouential benefits, dulv enclosinq all the relevant clocuments in supoort of oetitioner's case as out-forth in the oresent writ petition within a oeriod of one (O1\ week from the dlate of reqeiDt of copv of the ordei and the respondents shall examine and cgnsider the sa,me in accorclance to law in conformity with orincioles of natural iustice by orovidling an ooportunitv of personal hearino to ".. -l I =.\ 32 a SN, J wp-25397 _2021 the petitioner, in terms of orders passed bv the suoreme , 4 reDo

08.09.20 1 confirmed in w.A.No.7g2 of 2o1o dated 10.o6.2013 and 11 ( ) ALD, Paqe 234 an

19. 09.2f)17 passedinW P.No.2 2L7 ot 2007 oortedin Jrdor"nt of thir corrt d"t"d 21.o4.2o2o p"sred in I.A. Nos.1 2019 in W.P. No.23O 7of2 o19 2020 in1 4 fin litv, within a four 04) ks from the ate order as to costs. 33 SN, J wp 25397_2021 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. /rRUE coPY// SD/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSlsrANr psrnan I SECTION OFFICER one Fair copy to the Hon',ble MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA llo, Her Ladyships Kind Perusal) --" To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Panchayath.raj'r1{tYq-Employment Department' Telangana'Secretariat,Hyderabad,Stateotlelangana.

2. The Principal secretary, Finance and Planning Department' Secretariat' HYderabad, State of Telangana'

3. The commissioner of Panchayathraj Rural Employment, Govt' of Telangana' t Himayathnagar,HYderabad 4. The chief Executive officer, zilla Praja Parishad , Karimnagar District, TS' 5.ThelVlandalDevelopmentofficer,Bejankillandal,KarimnagarDistrict'TS' 6. 11 LR CoPies 7. The Under secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and company 8. The secretary, Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High court Affairs, New Delhi. Buildings, HYderabad .E

9. One CC to SRI CH.GANESH, Advocate [OPUC] 1O.ONE CC tO SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA' SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT

11.Two CCs to Gp FOR SERVICES-|, High court for the state of Telangana at loPUCl Hyderabad [OUT]

12.Two CD CoPies BSR GJP..V t 1".--...: ' 'i lll HIGH COURT DATED i3110712025 c T t-l o ( * S 1 ! Itt ?lll5 * ORDER WP.No.25397 of 2021 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS * -*t L k*,