The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. rep. by its Principal Secretary, The State of Telangana, Rural Employment Depa rtment, Telangana Secretariat, P Hydera

2. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

3. The Commissioner of Panch Telangana, Himayathnagar, ayathraj and Rural Employment, Govt. of Hyderabad. 4. The Chief Executive Officer,Zilla Praja Parishad , Siddipet District, TS. 5. The Mandal Development Officer, Dubbak Mandal, Siddipet District, TS. Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Constitutiori of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the in action of the respondents in not regularizing the temporary appointment provided to the petitioner on compassionate grounds in the year 1990 as per GO Ms. No.687 dated 03-10-1977 to till date by paying starving wages of Rs. 4000/- per month from 31 long years ignoring legitimate wages payable to the petitioner as per Section 13 and 15 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Section 4 of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 RAIV Article 14' 16' 21 ' 3S (d), 43 and 300 (A) of our Constitution, as highly illegal, unjust, unfair and violation of the provisions of the said Acts and our Constitution and prays to direct b the respondenl:s herein to treat the petitioner as a regular one in the last grade post from the date of appointment by applying the principle laid by the Honble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 6798 of 2019 dated 02-09-2019 in the case of Prem Singh Vs. Statr> of U.P. (2019 (1)SCC - 516) and with further direction to release all the conseqtlential monetary benefits of the last grade post w.e.f . 21- O2-1ggO to till date from time to time with 100% compensation on arrears of pay as per the principle laid by the Honble Suprerne Court in CA No. 3416 - 3445 of 2010 dated : 19-02-2019 in the case of Union of lndia Vs. Avatar Chand (2019 3 ALD SC 32) by awarding heravy cost. lA NO: 1 OF 2(t21 Petition underSection 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 resp,rndents herein to treat the temporary contingent appointment of the petitioner provided on compassionate grounds vide Proc. No. E/45lg0, dated 21- 02-1990 by Stlt respondent as per GO Ms. No. 687 dated O3-10-197T 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 Respondents No.lto3 : AGp FOR SERVTCES I counsel for the' Respondents No.4&5 : sRt K.pRADEEP REDDY, sc FoR zpp&Mpp The Court madr3 the following: ORDER ; I i ! e , t t I I I I I T T E .. .. I 3 SNrJ W.P.No.2544O of 2O2L THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA 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 for Z,PP & MPP appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 and 5.

2. praver as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particutarly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the in action of the respondents in not regularizing the temporary appointment provided to the petitioner on compassionate grounds in the year 1990 as per GO Ms. No. 687 dated 03-10-L977 to till date by paying starving wages of Rs. 40OOl- per month from 31 long years ignoring Iegitimate wages payable to the petitioner as per Section 13 and 15 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Section 4 of Equal Remuneration Act, t976 R/W Article t4, L6, 2L, 39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of our Constitution, as highly iilegal, 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 4 SN,J W.P.No.2544O of 2O2L Erppointment by applyihg the principle laid by the t{onble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 6798 of 2OLg clated 02-09-2019 in the case of prem Singh Vs. State of U.P. (20L9 (1) SCC - 516) and with further clirection to release all the consequential monetary benefits of the last grade post w.e.f. zt- 02-1990 to till date from time to time with 100 percentage (:ompensation on arrears of pay as per the principle laid by the Honble Supreme Court in CA trto. :+fO _ :1445 of 2010 dated t9-OZ-2019 in the case of Union of India Vs. Avatar Chand (2019 3 ALD SC 32) by awarding heavy cost and pass....,'

08.09.2(r O oassed in W.P.N 24377 of 20fJ7 < 5 SNrJ W.P.No.2544O ol 2O2l W.A.No.782 of 2O1O, dated 1O.06.2O13 and also order, dated 19.O9.2O17 oassed in W.P.No.27217 of 2OL7 reported in 2O18 (2) ALD Paqe 282 and also the order, dated 21.O4.2O2O oassed in W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 reoorted in 2O2O(4) ALD Paoe 379.

5. Learned standinq counsel appearinq on behalf of the respondent No.4 submits that the qrievance of the getitioner as put-forth in the oresent Writ Petition had not been addressed to the respondents herein as on date and therefore, the oetitioner cannot complain inaction on the part of respondents herein in considerinq the qrievance of the oetitioner and hence, the relief as oraved for bv the oetitioner in the present Wit oetition cannot be qranted and no Mandamus can be issued aoainst the resoondents hereunder as souoht for and the petitioner mav be directed to put-forth the oetitioner's qrievance as out-forth in the oresent Writ Petition bv way of a detailed representation to the respondents herein and uoon receiot of the said representation, the respondents would consider the same in accordance to law, within a reasonable period. 6 sNrJ W.P.No.2544O of 2O2l E:-*\+;. .

6. Learned counsel aooearino on behalf of the oetiti,oner does not disoute the said submission made bglh,e Iearned standinq counsel aooearinq on behalf of the resoondent No.4

7. lhe Aoex Court in the judqment reoorted in (2020) !-1SC1$ (L&S) in Prem Sinqh v State of Uttar pradesh and others, at oara 36 held as under: "36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30-40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work- charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court'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 years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the reoular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for puroose sion." h 7 SNrJ W.P.No.2544O of 2O2L Literate Dailv Wage Employees Association Vs. State of extracted hereunder:- 8 sNrJ W.P.No.2544O oJ 2O2L llen years or more in dulv sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further en5ure that requtar recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant ,sanctioned posts that require to be filled uo, in .cases where temoorarv emolovees or dailv waqers are beino now emoloved. The orocess must be set in motion within six months from this date. .... 10. The judoment of the Aoex Court dated 2O.12.2O24, reported in 2024 Lawsuit(sc) 12o9 in Jaooo Anita and elhers v. union of rndia and others, and the relevant hereunder: *12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workersr" the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades, Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. 13, The claim bv the resoondents that these were not reoular oosts lacks merit, as the nature of the work oerformed by the appellants was oerennial and fundamentat to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective *i7 9 SN,J W.P.No.2S44O ol2O2L of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants, termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of wo.kers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasionat. 24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation 197 F.3d LLBT (gth 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 tne Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law ernployees 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 a ssigned to the worker, should determine em ployment status and the correspondin g rights and benefits. receive fair 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 IU . sNrJ W.P.No.2544O ot 2e2L rrinciples are often misinterpreted or nisapptied to deny legitimate ctaims oi lofi s.grvinO employees. This judgment aimed t; ,Jistinguish between',illegal,,-and,,irregular; ,rppointments. However, the laud able intent of the judg ment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminate ly reject the clai ms of employees, even in cases rryhere their a ppointments are not i Hegal, lack adherence to merely procedural lbrmalities Government departme nts often cite the judgme nt in Uma Devi (su pra) to argue that no vested right to regula rization exists for employees, overlooki ng the t:emporary judgment's explicit a cknowledg ment of cases rvhere regularization is appropriate. This flecades. 127.. In light of these considerations, in our .pinion, it is imperative for gor6rnr"nt clepartments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Enguging-;o;[;;s cln a temporary basis for extenOeO- periods, e:specially when their roles are integrui to t# c'rganization's functioning, not only c6ntrur"n"i i,ternationar rabour standards but arso - -;n; the organization "*poiei undermines emptoyee morale. ey 6nsurinj !air employment practices, government institutions can reduce the -burden Lrnnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principler - _ to legal challengei SN,J W.P.No.2544Q of 2O2L 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 foilow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.

28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 .t0.2018 are quashed; ii. The aooellants shall be the oeriod they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuitv of services for the said oeriod and the same would be eorrnled oost- retiral benefits."

11. "15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen

1.2 SN,J W.P.No.25440 of 2021 n a t this juncture, it would 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 llndia in the following paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in l3 SNrJ W.P.No.2544O of 202L 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 St S8ZO evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: o t, . 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, regirdless 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 I I I l Bd l4 SN,I W.P.No.25440 of 2021 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. "

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer,s inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were Ieft in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record. t7. ln light of these considerations, the Employer,s discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. 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 :A 15 SNrJ W.P.No.2544O ot 2O2L consideration, such concerns do not absolve the eouitable entitlements. Indeed, bureaucratic r fYtatrttrtat .I hqalt rrrtaac aa* saiAa with the 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. '16 SN,J W.P.No.25440 of 2021 III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entifled 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.

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. l7 SNrJ W.P.No.2544O of 2O2L under: "54 "The Futt Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concruded, that temporary emproyees were not entitred to the minimum of thg. y.oular pay-scare, merery for tne reaioi," th"t the activities carried o! .gy dailf-waOers and regular employees were similar. The futt bench hoiever, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who feil in either of the two exception, were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drlvtln by regurar emftoyees. rhe ixceptions rgcgrded by the furt bench of the High court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder: _ - "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regurar sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing. a serection process based fairness and equarity of opportunity to ail other erigibre candidates, shail be entiiled to minimum of the regutar pay scale from the date of engagement. 'upon oermissible 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 - shatt be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months." l8 SN,J W.P.No.2544O of 2O21

4. l9 sNrJ W.P.No.2544O ot 2O2L ' this date. .,., u5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the gui"'ut principles against. .'regularization' enunciated in umJiui, if tnu foitowing-conditions are fulfilled (i)TheemployeeconcernedshoutdhaveworkedforT0years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or -proi"ition of the iii"'ii ordei of any court o.r tribunal' In otherwords,theStateGovernmentoritsinstrumentality the employee and co.ntinued him in shoutd have "^ptiiii ;;;i;" votuntarily ina continuously for more than ten Years. illegal' (ii) The appointment of such employee shoutd not even if irregutar. Where the appointments are not made or ioitirr"a Sgainst sanctioned posts or where the persons -ao not possess the prescribed. minimum upio,iii"a qualifications, the appointments witt be considered to be person empl6yed pos.sessed the iltegat. But where prescribed quatifications a'nd *a, *oiking against .sanctioned 'p,iti, Ort had Oii, selected without undergoing the process of open ,o*pititiu" selection' such appointments are considered to be irregular' 'ihe .be A 20 SNrJ W.P.No.2544O ot 2O2t :set in motion within six months from the date of its 'decision (rendered on 70.4,2O06). 6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its Droper 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 courts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess fhe requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one-time regularization process. on the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentatities 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 circumstanceq the employees who were entitted to be considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in lJmadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was comptetea withoult considering their cases, or 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 courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of lJmadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entiiled to the benefit of para 53 of lJmadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise wilt be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of llmadevi, are so considered. ,:.- .:.. lr.' ,'::.--=. .'1,i::i:-t:!.F".ln;.:;.' i,.. . 1 ":- . ,;+J 2t SN,J W.P.No.2544O ot 2021 T II I I I I

9._These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in tJmadevi. The Appeltant (Zita panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision in lLmadevi or thereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High court has directed that the cases of respondents shourd be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of umadevi, is that the Zita panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out wheth-er there are 1ny daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zita Panchayat and if so whether such employees QnZtuding the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fultill them, their seruices 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 say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of para 53 22 SNrJ W.P.No.2544O ot 2O2l of Llmadevi, 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. 1,4. 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorrption of Special Police Officers appointed by the Stater, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It held that the nnere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not rendr3r 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 r:reation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadrr: 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 SN,J W.P.No.2S44O of 2O2L 23 It Constitution. 24 SNrJ W.P.No.2544O of 2O2L (7) The respondent MunicipalitY being a statutory body is obliged bY the G.O. Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the 212(supra). 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 approachedtheTribunatbelatedly,inouropinion,isnot j[,[tiii"a. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed 'modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appetianis' services be regularised with effect from the date of'their completing their five year continuous service as was iaid down biy thii Court in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 480'

16. 8 SCC 265, the supreme court held that 'The obiective behirnd the exception carved out in this case was to pernrit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appoantments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure v -,-4 25 SNrJ W.P.No.2544O ot 2O2L ,, approves earlier view expressed in M.L.Kesari extracted above. (2O14) 7 SCC 223, similar view was taken bv the relevant contentious issue that the resoondent employees have continued in their service for more principle laid down bv this Court in Umadevi case (State of Karnataka v Umadevi (2OO61 4 SCC 7 : 2006 has rightly held that the respondent employees are entitled for the relief the same cannot be intertered with by this Court."

18. The Judgment of this Court dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.276O2 of 2019 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 of 2023 dated t. 26 SN,J W.P.No.2544O ot 2O2L 1O.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex court dated 09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 0t 2024.

20. ''100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are dutv-bound to exercise such fide, or on irrelevant 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." C.C.lNo.48 of 2OO8 observed as under:- "Further, it is manifest from the material on record that the services of the similarly placed persons who approached the 27 sNrJ W.P.No.2544O ot 2O2t law courts were re-gurarized. The apperant-corporation arso issued various -io.tz.1see, 9ln!9 _ il;rrz.ii.riu.s oateJ -inci -'Ltest 11'09'L992, 06.10.2002 being 4.7.2o0g for regularization of casuar/contract emproyees, It is arso to be seen that section 25-T of the lo'n.t prohibits unfair rabour practice by anv emproyer o. *o.tran. As can be seen from the factuat scenario 6f tn" l.ru, on hand, engaging the respondents for su.ch a tong .ontinuous period of time on casuat basis is norhing ori ,niuii rauoui pluciill aftracting "nJ the provisions of sect"ion-is-rlr the ID Act. The rearned Single Judge whire rerying * *," rightly held that '!h;. of the Apex court, responOents are enti,ed to regularization as.directea in-t[e impugned orders, as the learned single Judge .onria"i"i'J'rr u.," aspects of the mafter in detail, in the Droper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interflren.u in thare appeals.,, -oecisions 2!. 28 SN,J W.P.No.2544O of 2O2l !,OO and G.O. Ms. No.212. dated 22.4.1994, do not yhittle down the width and the judgment in Maniula Ilasfrni s case (supra) !:he directions issued by the Suoreme Court in Para 53 grf its judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). It is, !:herefore, not permissible for the respondents to take ;;helter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated .22.4.1994, to denv regularization to the petitioners, 'rho have, admittedlv, satisfied the criteria laid down (supra).

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2OL7, in OA No.1442 of 2OL4, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ oetition is allowed with the direction to the resoondents to consider regularisation of the services of the petitioners aqainst the existing vacancies of Work Inspectors and appoint them subject to their satisfving the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). This orocess must be comoleted within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

22. 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 service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date. 48. It is not known why the 1st resoondent has not followed the decision in Uma Devi's case (supra), as exolained in M.L. Kesari's case (supral and undertaken a one-time exercise of preparing the list of daily wage employees who had worked for more than ten (1O) vears without the intervention of the Courts and 29 sNrJ W.P.No.2544O ot 2O2L qualifications for the posts' and if so. regularize their services.

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one-time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles L4, 16 and 2L of the Constitution of India; said exercise shall be done within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order."

23. This Court ooines that in the present case, the sweeper and further to consider his reouest to treat the

24. This court opines that petitioner is entitled for 30 SNrJ W.P.No.2544O oJ 2O2t to and extracted above. a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the rearned counser appearing on beharf of the petitioner and rearned standing counset appearing on beharf of the respondent Nos,zl & 5 c) The observations of the Apex court in the various judgrnents (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: ix2O2O) 1 SCC (L&S) (ii) 1e9o(2) sCC pase 396 (iii) 2O2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) LZO} ,(v) (201.7) 1 SCC t4g (vi) 2o1o(s) scc 241 (vii) (2013) l4scc 6s (viii) 2O1S SCC Ontine SC tTgz r[ix) (2o1s) I SCC 26s tlx) (20l4) t scc 22s (.xi) SLP No.3 2g4t of 2024 ,, t* * *f-J 3l SN,J W.P.No.2544O ot 2O2l 7 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2OLt (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD pase 379 d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated

10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O and 854 of 2OL2 while uploading the Judgment dated O8.O9.2O1O passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated

19.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.272t7 ot 2017 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of zOLg and W.P.No.23O57 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. 32 SNrJ W.P.No.2544O ol2O2L I i 1 J i,i I:: i' :i t: , 7 JJ SN,J W.P.No.2544O of 2O2L reported in 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 which had attained bv the Apex Court in the various judoments (referred to Karnafaka v, Uma Devi and dulv communicate the decision to the oetitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if ooy, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/. A.SREENIVASA REDDY REGISTRAR \\ \ To, //TRUE COPYII One fair copy to the Hon'ble Mrs Justice Su (for Her Ladyships Kind perusal) ECTION OFFICER Nanda 1- The Principal Secretaty, Panch.ayathraj and Rural Employment Department, Telangana Secretariat, HyderabaO.

2. The Principql Secreta.ry, Finance and planning Department, secretariat, Telangana State, Hyderabad.

3. The C,rmmissioner of Panchayathraj and Rural Employment, Govt. of TelangJana, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad.

4. The Clrief Executive Officer, ZillaPraja Parishad , Siddipet District, TS. 5. The t\Iandal Development Officer, Dubbak Mandal, Siddipet District, TS. 6. One CC to SRI CH.GANESH, Advocate. [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUTI

8. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES l, High Court for the State of Telangana. "- -

9. One CC to SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY, SC FOR GPPS. [OPUC] 10. 1 1 LR.Copies

11.The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, tt/inistry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

12.T.he [igcrgtary, Advocates' Association Library, High court Buildings, Hyderabad

13.Two CD Copies. BSK TKS s|.\ ;+ J t\ \\ IA ,9 F t I I HIGH CC}URT DATED:11010812025 Ti"rE s C) i6 * ){l?fr * \. ORDER WP.No.25440 ot 2021 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t AT 9s