The High Court · 2025

"36. There are some of the em ployees who have not been regularized in spite of havin g rendered the services for 30- 40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated As they have worked in the work-charged establishment not aga inst any particular project, their servi ces ought to have been reg ula rized und er the Government instructions and even as per the deci sion 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 Cou rt's order, as one- time measure, the services be regularrzed of such em ployees. In the facts of the case those employees who h ave worked for ten years or mo re sh ou d have been reg ul rized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consid eration of regularization as others have been regul arized, we direct that their services be treated as a reg ular 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 fr m he rend ered bv them riqht from the dav thev ente d h s d rv ef r m t k- ar m e a a 7 SN,J w_29t15 2022 T e u Da Wa E f a d P o rna k re 19 P 4 c t c s s r oersons s req ular one. 9 Pa No. Kar a .04. 6 hereund I "5 n s wher 67 1 c f s r TN 1 o r R m a k r erv n to ee ma h The s .In s s h v h o d t e s s s n n t 3 n v t t t o e Vs. ma e u e m ts s N u e 72 c u h a 1 7 v 79 4 o o u t e n u r r o t d t u o m its u t I m o e n e h ne- m n o r r 8 c r or of tri u it e to ed an s n ca es h o n ln st 10. T e u o m n of th A o ed in o24 La s t r v.U o o Indi a ra h o L2 1 4 hereu n der: s e s o n h fr o n t m e m td u k s SN,J \vD 29t75 2022 n e a e I w e s x c d 6 a 2 1 2 2 2 9 th rs a e el n 2 r d "1-2., Deqpite being labelled as ,,part_time . the appeflants perior-IJ'ii"". w-o_rkers," essential tasks on a daily .na .or,tiirtr. basis over extensive periods, ..G"s"L"rn over a decade to nearly two'decaje"] ii ei. engagement was not sporadic o, tenrpoiary ln 1at1r_e, instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibitities -' rypilalty associated with sa nctio ned posts-.- M"'.[oi.., -o-ti.. the respondents did not personnet for these task-s - ariirig --it. TJ:lil!... tenure, underscorinj- irr. rnotspensable nature of their work. 13. "ng.g. "nV Th e a m f necessitates nature oF these duties clas sification as reg ular pos their initial engagements noteworthy that subsequ same tasks to privat a lso 9 SN,J wP 29115_2022 appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Coutt noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits' It le in rectifvinq hiqhli ohts the i diciarv's e a workers recelv fair treat ent.

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" appointments' It cateoorlc IIv held that m olovees trreq ular aooointments . who were enoaq dulv sa nction Dosts an "irregular" d had 10 SN,J wp 29115 2022 n tn e o n a n n e- time measure. However, the laudable intent of th e judgment is bei ng subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of emp loyees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural foimalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary ernpioye"r, overlooking the judgment,s explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is a ppropriate. sto s U m IV w rendere decades. hi sel s a! tndisoensable swh hav tve a e service r !o

27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair "on and stable employment. Engaging workers a temporary basis for extended peiiods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization,s functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines dmployee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with internationat standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contrabuting to the overall betterment of labour practices in the couniry. 28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Trib"unal 11 SN,J wpll9t75 J022 are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 .LO.20lB are quashed ; ll. The a ooel la nts shall be taken back on du rthwith and their forthwith. reoularised servtces However, the aooellant s shall n tbe entitled oecunaarv benefits/back waoes thev have no worked for but would beentitled to continui tv of se for the said oeriod and the woul d be cou nted for st- thei r r I benefit r the r

11. The Judoment of theADex Co in 2O2 IN c 144 HR 3 1-O1.20 25 LA NOT v NAGAR N IGAM GH AZT BAD,, tn DA rtic ular the relevant Dara os.15 to 19 are extracted hereu nder: red t s n tn "15. It is manifest that the Aooel!ant Wor men n Emolo ite di V nif i nference rts ru ual d circu mstances rn mus 'sf il ure ions to d U nder In -wa where t d in fu v r t na w u furnl h such recor s- so-a ows na dv rse labour v sta blish d w n 3 hew rk is oermanent e t2 d r I e u n r SN,J \\p-291'15 2022 w rk rs who fulfil fte r n tu e. ora ll n m c nn t e n h b n aq ree ent. At this juncture, recall the broader critique employment practices as done this court in Jaggo v. Union paragraphs: en tn it would be appropriate to oF indefin ite "tem pora ry,, by a recent judgement of of India in the following -anJ 'ounuritr, "22. The pervasive misuse oF temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, rEfiects a oroa0er systemic issue that adversely affects rights and job security. rn tnL private y^T.!"rr: . sector, the rise of the gig economy has led'to an increase in precarious Emptoymeni u.-nju."nt=, :l\en.lgrTr€rized by t_ack of :oJl-ecurity, ano tair treatment. Such practices - have been :ll,l:::11_I91 exptoitins workers and undeiminins raoour standards. Government institutions, entrusted n3jro]Oing rhe principtes of fairness 1t1tl .1:ustice, _an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public entities engage in misuse of tempora ry sector contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental irends 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 particutarty in governmenr instirutions, :Tf]"I_"^"_r, olten tace multifaceted forms ot exploitation. While the foundational purpose or temporaiytoni[.t, ,uv have been to address short_term o. i"ironuf-n""or, ["I Fy: increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long_term obliqations owed to employees. These praciic"r.inii"rt in several ways: . SN,J wp]9175 022 . Masuse of "Te Dorarv bels: Emolovees enoaoed for work that is essential, recurrino, and inteqral to the functionino of an institution roles mi rror Su reoular "contra ctual." even when h se !ar r n o ificati dionitv, securitv, and benefits that m lo ees identica! tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. ' Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are oFten denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances." t4 SN,J \\p 29t7s 2022

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer,s inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequenfly, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left 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. 17. In tight of these Employer's d iscontin uation of the 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 we re enqaoed in considerations, the Appellant Workmen sen ial r w I can ot reieqa ted to DerDetual uncertaintv. whiteconcerns a wt h e o e m o r t b a rt h ofw en wh h ve de facto reqular role s for an xten ded period. c t m anc lon su h con o m th a ron s I de a l5 SN,J wp 29115_2022

18. The imo oned order of the Hioh Court, to the 6vla'r+ dailv-wa oe enoaoement without contin uitv or il rn+ tlra rk en r. nfi h A +har, rahrr cai ide rerillr IttAaltaltil'l rrl hrr kwa followinq 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 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. Their entire oeriod of absence (fro the date of r +armtn rli on until ctu rl counted for continuitv of service and all conseo ential benefits. such as senioritv and elioibiliW for or motions, if anv. ln atemen +\ cti.ll III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. lo er R s ondent irected t initiate a fair and transDarent Drocess for nt workmen wi hin six reoularizin o the Aooell months from the date of reinstatement dulv conside ino the fact that thev have oe rformed ties akin to Dermanent Derennr I municioal du t t6 SN,J \\P -29115 2022 reo la riza ion, DOSts. Ina ssessino Em lover shall not i mDose educ tion a I or f a reo utrements were to the aDDlie AD ella nt Work eno tos imilarl situa ted reo ular em lovees !n th e ast. To the e ent ora re reo uired, he ResDOnde t Emo lover shall exD edite all nece sarv dmini rative processes to ensure these lonotimee Dlovee s are not indefinitelv retai ed on dailv aqes o ntra rv to statutorv and equitablenorms.

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.,, L2. The ADex Court in a iudqment re rted in( 20L71 L SuDrem e Cou rt Cases1 ,inSt ate of PunIab and ot hers VS tn h (1) (2)(3) of th said udom d I a its su nt ob rved as und er: "54 "Ihe Full Bench of the High Court, white adjudicating upon the above controversy had conctuded, that tempcrary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay_ scale, merely for the reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The fult bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary emptoyees, who fell in. either of the two exceptions, were heli entitted to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular emptoyeeZ. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:- "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergotlng a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to a other eligibte candidates, 17 SN,J wp _29 17 5 _2022 shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scate from the date of engagement. AD rntees ate not ADDO'N ted aoa inst te ular ,t se ,ces are availed ned Dosts and t, 'he n m a DOtn ted in uch c,eteoorv i.e. for 70 hoc or con a mrntmum f the reoular Dav allowances ,,s- such dailv waoe shal't thout anv assumDtion that work of n lono oertod of ti. e. an eauitable riah tis if anv. mav have to be consid'ered sof leqallv oermrs'sible sc heme. suc, c red larizat. on. ratelv in te (j) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two monihs of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual emptoyee shalt be entitted to arrears for a period of three years and two months.,, ns. Their clai, D

13. c e 47 M e n under: A Cou r in2 1 9 r n d ers v B

4. The decision in State of rnataka v. Umade vl was rendered on 70.4.2O 06 (reoort, tn 2oo6( 4 SCC 1I In that case- a this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules retating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re- engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Articie 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduty with the economic l8 SN,J \\p 29175 2022 arrangement of its affairs by the State of iB instrumenta lities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bYpassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates' This Court further hetd that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : 7 a 2 u u e asD ect needs to be cla There mav be "53. cases wh ere irreoular a D,,ointments (not illeoal d ,n S.V. Nara NADDA aDDointments) as exDla t R 724 R.^r. 7967 7 SCC 4O9l and B.N. Naoaraian 17979 (41 SCC 5O7l nd referred s in dulv sanctioned vacan t Dosts miqht have been made nd the emolovees have continued to work for ten Years or mote but without the coutB or of tr ibunals. intervention of orders of tion of the services of The que stion of requla bv this the lioht of the orincioles settl merits i to and in the lioht Court in the cases above of this udoment. In that context. the nion of the State Go vernments an India. Ds to reoularize as i nstru mentalities should take ularlv a one-time measure. the for ten vears or more o have wo aooointe in dulv sanctioned oosts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should ular rectuitme nts are further e nsute that undertaken to fill those vecant sanction d Dosts that reouire to be filled uo, in cases where now emoloved. The Drocess mu t be set in within six mon ths from this date, .... rvices of such ir, idered m ra e "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the generat principles against ' regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or iore in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim or' '^r anv court or tribunal, In other words, the t9 SN,J \,tP-?gt75-2022 State Government or its instrumentality should have emptoyed the employee and continued him in service voluntarity and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be iltegat, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not madi or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegat. dut where the person e.mployed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected with.out undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irreguiar. (iii) Umadevi the conce ed uDon e r larize the se sts a dutv those , 's of ularlv aooo , n o n ,n a re mus o e directed th t such one-tim e meas (rendered on tO.4. 20O61. 6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in lJmadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a tist of a casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for. more than ten years without the intervention of courts a nld tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees 'several yere still pending before Courts. Consequently, departments and instrumentatities did not commence the one_ time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, thb employees who were entitted to be considered in terms of para 20 SN,J \vp _29 l7 5 ]022 53 of the decision in umadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 5i of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercrse should consider all daily- wage/ad hoc/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 5j of tJmadevi, 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 consldered in tenns of Para 53 of L)madevi, are so considered. 8. The obiect behind the said direction in Ddra 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure at those who have Dut in more than ten vears of continuous serurce without the Drotection of anv interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was red for u their lonq m n oractice of em Dlo ,no l,ersons on rvice. Second is to errs trumentalities do ,n re that the waoe/ad- I eriods ve se rved for reoularize them on the oround that thev more than ten ea rs. therebv defeatino the con stitutional 'tuitment and or statutorv Drovts,ons relatino to nts that all a DDointment, The true effect of the di. Dersons who have worked for more than ten ts es on 70.4.2006 (th date of decision in Umadev,il without the Drotection of an v interim order of anv court or tribunal. in vacant Dosts, oossessino the reouisite oual,ification- are entitled to be considered for reoularization. The fact that the emolover has not undertaken such exercise of Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken onlv in wit. , emDlovees- the rioht to be considered for redular,'ization in terms of the aho ve T rec?io s in Urna devi as a o ne-iime n measure.

9. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat, 21 SN,J vrp 29 t7 5 _2022 Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision in umadevi or thereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be ansidered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila panchayat, Gaiag should now undertake an exercise within six moiths, a geieral one_ time regula.rization exercise, to find out whether tiere are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila panchayat and'if so whether such employees (inctudiig the respondeits) fulfiil the requirements mentioned in para Si of lJmadevi. If they futfi them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because oflhe p6ndency of t-hese cases, then their cases sha have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needtess to s_ay t\at if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be iegularised. If the employees who have compteted 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. Cou

14. In the iu omentoft inN hal Si nqh EA an others v. Sta eofP niab r Dorted tn (20 3) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Polace 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 Bank did not render the 'employees' of those Banks since the appellants appointment was made by the State and disciplinary 22 SN,] w_29175J022 control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusivety 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 acceDt the defence that the were no sa nction ed Dosts was iustification for the State to util ise and so th services of la e n U m ber of eoD D e like the a DDellants for decades. It held that "sanctioned oosts do not fall from heaven" and that the State has to create them bv a conscious choice on the basis of some ratio al assessment of need. Referrin o o Umadevi t t d t the I DIlE ants before them were not arbitrarilv chosen their i nitial aDoointment was not an 'irr ular' aooointmen as t had been made in accordance ith the statutorv rocedure h a C+-+a rescribed un er cannot be heard to sav that thev are not entitled to be t h Police Act I aAl A he se of the n their a tn m n w re temoorarv and not aqainst a nv sanctioned Dosts created 23 SN,J \,/p 29175 2022 bv the State. It was held that e iud ment in Um adevi b t R a n o u e s d P r t m n !n x B on.

15. The iudo ent of the Dex Court r Dorte sc Onli L7 B Intv e b R c f Di Pr h o a I in2 o15 v r (a) We find it difficutt to accept the reasoning adopted bv the Hioh Cpurt. The right of the apoeltants to i6k reoularization fJows.from tne G,O. t'to.2lZ dffi have been i.n service of the first respondeitiol oiv orior to the issu-ance of the said G.o, but even subseiiintii ihii issue of 9.a.. yil t?day. The respondent uunEipi@ teing a sratutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supri). thspite'of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of ihe 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 th.e Tribunal betatedly, in our opinion, is' not justified. In the circum_stances, the appeat is altowed modifying'the order under directing that the appellants, servifes be regutarised appeal with effect from the date of their completing their iive year continuous service as was taid down by this- Court in District C-ollector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh &. Ors. 2009 (B) SCC 480, -by 24 SN,J \w _29115 _2022

16. In A arkant Rai v State of Bihar re orted (20 s)8 scc 265 the Suoreme Court held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in thas case was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure securitv of emolovme nt of those oerson s who had served the State Government and their instrume ntalities for more th n ten vea rs" This decisron a ODroves In that c se, emolov ee was wor ino for 29 vears. arlier vieua exoressed in M.L.Kesari extracted abov e. L7. In state of Jarkhand v Kamal Pra sad reDorted in 20L4 Suoreme Cou rt and it was held as follows: ilar v ww c 223 sta nb "47.... n view of the cateoorical ndino of fact on the ue that the soondent em lovees relevant contentious have c ntinued in th eir service for more than 7 t, adevi case (State of rnataka v Umade vt 3 this Co rt ,n Um , I, I, I, 53 The Division Bench f the 4SCC7 2 6 to the Dresent cases Court h sn h [&s eld that re on aDDli emolovees are entitled for t e relief. the same intertered with bv this C' ourt." cannot be 25 SN,J w]9t75-2022 1E. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed an W.p.No.27602 ol 2O19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.93t ol 2O23 dated 10.1O.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLp No.32847 ot 2024.

19. The iudo ment of the ADex Court in Hari Krishna M dir T fM rash r Sta d IR 2 39 No .1OO and 10 t held s follows: u ul r '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-boun dto e has failed to ex rclse or has wronol dis etion conferred u Don it bv a statu .orarul e. or Govern m entorh a as exercised u hdi n con sideratton. o th e tion mal ercrse a licv de ts ton e

101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority.,, 26 SN,J \w 29175 2022

20. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment dated 1O.O6.2013 Dassed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O and 854 ot 2OL2 while uoholdinq the Judqment dated O8.O9.2O10 passed in W.P.No.24377 oJ 2OO7 and C.C.No.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 law Courts were regularized. The a ppella nt- Corpora tion also issued various office ord ers/circu la rs dated 20.12.1989, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest belng 4.7.2009 for regularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25- T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for such a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of Section 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respondents are entitled to regularization as directed in the impugned orders. as the learned single Judge considered all the aspects of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals." 2L. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment dated L9.O9.2OL7 Dassed in w.P.No.272L7 of 2OL7 orted in 2O18 2 ALD e 282 at ara 16 and ara observed as under:- "16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of india. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1,994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f 27 SN,J wp 29175_2022 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/reg u la rization 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. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.!994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in uma Devi,s case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning reg ula rization/a bsorption exist. There re. Act 2 of 1994 1OO and G.O. Ms. No.21 . dated 22.4.1994, do not whittle down the width and the sh ini the traiectorv of the dire ions issued bv the Suore e Court in Pa ra 53 of its iu qment in U,,, Devi's resoon ents to take helter un der Act 2 ol 1994 a nd G.o. Ms. No.212, dated 22,4.1994, to deny reoularization to +ha narrniccih G.ii I l n r f e h. Par N Fadlrr the u ron ! Deyi's case (suora ). 18. For the aforementioned reasons, order. dated Zl .6.ZOl7, in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside h DOn ents to consider reoula risation of the se ices of the ne itioners aoa inst the tno vacancres of Work InsDe ors and aDDo nt them subi ct to their satisfvinq the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the iudoment in vi's case ( suora). This llroce ss must be comDleted Uma within two months fro m he date of receiot of a coov of this o rder -" wt h h t

22. The Divi sion Bench of this Court in its Judo ment dated t.o4.2(,2o Das in I.A .No s.1 of 2O2O in 1 ol 20L9 and w. P.No.23O57 of 2019 reoorte an 2O2O(4)A D Daqe 7 r 48 and ar a "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of 28 SN,J \vp 29175 2022 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 whv the 1st resoo dent has not followed the decision in Uma Devi 's ca e (suDra'1, as .L. Kesar 's case (su D ra I an undertaken a exD lained in x h ne-i tm emDlovees who had worked for more than ten (10) vears without the intervention of the Courts and Tribunals as on 10.4.2006 and subject them to a process verificataon as to whether thev are workino aoainst vac nt Dosts and possess reouisite oualaficataons for the oosts, and if so, reoularize therr servrces. zrf nranr C dzi w

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 14, 76 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the resDonden ts are directed to reoul rize on one-time basis a e each of th eti rone comDlete 10 ears of servace on dailv waqes from the initial dates of their aDooint ment. But, thev shall not be entitled to a n monetarv relief. The said exercise shall be o (2) weeks from the da of receipt of done within f heo r 'servi

23. This Court pines that in the Dresent case, the resoon dents failed to discha rqe their dutv in examrnrnq the reouest of the Detitioners for re ularization of Detitioners' se ices, who is workino a s full tame sweeDer ,a n .l further concielar fhair. t^t r t m ora n rs tn h r e of full time swe oer as reo lar one for a lou rDoses bv qrantino I Deriodical increme t revised ast orade Dav with e 29 SN.J wp 29175 _2022 from time to timefr o petitioners, in accordance to taw. the dat of aooointment of the

24. This Cou rt oD es that are entitl d for cons ideration of Detitioners'cas e for orant of the rel ef as a e Wri observations oft heA ex Co u e r on tn h rnv arious iudo ments d n a e and h ew f Divisi on Bench of this Court in the Judo ments referred to and extracted above.

25. Takino into considera tion: - a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5 c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: i)(2o2o) ,. SCC (L&S) (ii) 1990(2) SCc Page 396 30 SN,J \\,p -2917 5 -2021 (iii) 2025 rNSC 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1209 (v) (2017) l SCC 148 (vi) 2o1O(9)sCC247 (vii) (2013) 14SCc 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (2o1s) I scC 26s (x) (2014) 7 SCC223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2oo6) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(a)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 ol 2O1O and 854 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment dated O8.O9.2010 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 L9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 ot 2O17 (referred to and extracted above). f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2OL9 (referred to and extracted above). / 31 SN,J w_29 t't 5_2022 g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 ofthe present order. h tP ut- w r reou larization of oetitioners'servtces- and also the claim ition r t e rs ln a Swe one for all ourDoses bv orantino last orade oav with periodical increm ents revise from time to time from the date of ao ointment of the oetitio ers and consequential benefits. dulv en losino al! the rel va nt docu ments in suDDort of oetition ers'case as Dut-forth in the o sent writ etition. within a oeriod of one (O 1 week from the date recei rrt oJ coDv rrf the order and the resoo dents shall examin e and consader the same tn acco ance to la itv with o nciDles of natu ral in confor ) b t r hea rin e on r or er h Co u tn Uma Devi's ca s reDo te ln 20 o6 4) SCC Paqe 1, r 2 t a Ore inW in 2O11 4 7 D oo7 4an ).L SN.J w 29t15 2022 confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 1O.06.2013, and also as oer Division Bench Judqment of this Court dated L9.O9.2OL7 oassed in W.P.No.272L7 ot 2OO7 reported in 2O18(2)ALD Daqe 282 and also the Division Bench Judqment of this Court dated 21.O4.2O2O oassed in I.A.Nos.1 ot 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 in W.P.No.23O57 ot 2OL9 reported in 2O2O(4)ALD paqe 379 which had attained finalitv. within a Deriod of four (O4) weeks from the date of receiot of a coDv of this order, dulv takinq into consideration the observations and the law laid down bv the Aoex Court in the variou s iudqments (referred to and extracted above). and in o rticular, Dara No.53 of the iudqment of the Aoex Court in the case of State of Karna ka v. Uma Devi and dulv communicate the decision to the petitioners. However, there shall be no der as to costs. 33 SN,I wp 29t13 2022 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- P.C.SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANTFISTRAR ,/ SECTION OFFICER / One fair copy to THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTTCE SUREPALLI NANDA (For Her Lordship's Kind perusal)

1. 11 L.R. Copies. 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. T S.,Hyderabad. Buildings, Hyderabad Telangana, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderatiad. J. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, Hrgh Co-Lrt 4. Ihe Principal Secretary, Panchayathraj and Rural Employment 5. Th_e Principal Secretary, Finance anit Planning Department. Secretariat, 6. The Commissioner of Panchayathraj and Rural Employment, Govt. of 7 The ^Dislrict _Collector (Panchayat), and Chairman of Minimum Wages Act B. The Cief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Khammam District, 9 One CC to SRl. CH. GANESH, Advocate IOPUCI 1O.Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES ll ,High bourt for the State of Telangana '1 1.One CC toSRl. PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, SC FOR Zpp AND I\Ipp and District Selection Committee, Khammam District, Khammam, at Hyderabad [OUT] Khammam. " loPUCl

12. Two CD Copies To, B I\,4 t]SR HIGH COURT DATED:2010812025 ORDER WP.No.29175 of 2022 ,l (J T * ( ogTHE S T4 18 t4AB ?n6 z * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS L] *; -J r, *j, Jr 6