The High Court · 2025

Judgment

5. ^id"di tt-fr"n( iuf rngAna Secreta ri5t, Hyd erabad' The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secreta.ry Panchayathraj and Ru rat E m ployme The state of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad' The District collector and chairman for tMinimum wages committee and Dl;i*G"lLJt, n corn*itt"", Naraya n pet District, Naraya n pet. The chief Executive officer, zillaPraia Parishad, Narayanpet District' NarayanPet. ThetVlandalParishadDevelopmentofficer,tVladdurttlandal,Narayanpet" District, TS. ...RESPONDENTS PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe 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 tvrandamus to decrare the action of the Respondents in not treating the services of petitioner as regular one, in last grade post, even after exhaust of life energies and youth in 39 years long service, as unjust, unfair, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 16,21, 39 (d), 43 and 300 (A)of our constitution in denying legitimate living wages of last grade pay and prays to direct the 1tt Respondents herein to treat the services of ihe petitioner as regular one from the date of initial appointment by : .:. i'r :'":j,rr" applying the decision and principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 36 and 37 in the Judgment in C.A. No. 6798 of 2019 and Batch Cases dated O2tOgl2O19 (2019 (10) SCC 516) in C.A. No. 1254 of 2O1B to reckon contingent services of petitioner for computation of qualifying service to grant to pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits with all consequential monetary benefits including seniorrty with arrears of pay in last grade post along with periodical increments, as revised form the date of appointment of the petitioner with 100 % compensation as per principle laid by Apex Court in the case of Union of lndia Vs. Avtar Chand in (l A. No.3416 - 3445 of 2O10 and Batch Cases dated 19-02-2019 (ALD 3 OF 2019 SC 32) by applying principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 141 of our Constitution. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 release last grade pay benefits, treating the petitioner as regular one for rendering long service of 39 years as contingent employee along with periodical increments from time to time. Counselfor the Petitioner: SRI CH. GANESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4: SRI G. NARENDER REDDY, SC FOR ZPPS AND MPP AND GPPS The Court made the following: ORDER J SN, J wp_26442-2021 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA ORDER: Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Rural Development, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 3, learned Government Pleader for Finance and planning, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 and Sri G. Narender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for ZPPS AND MPP AND GPPS, appearing on behalf of respondent Nci.4.

2. as under: "....to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not treating the services of the petitioner as regular one in last grade post, even after exhaust of life energies and you in 39 years long service, as unjust, unfair, arbitrary and violation of Article L4, L6,2L,39 (d),43 & 300 (A) of Constitution in denying legitimate living wages of last grade pay and prays to direct the l't respondent herein to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one from the date of initial appointment by applying the decision and { /- \ .++I \ .a-? ' 4'-<)--F --/ 1 4 SN, J wp_26442_2021 principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme court in para 36 and 37 in the Judgment in C.A. No. 6798 of 2019 & Batch cases dated 02.09.2019 (2019 (10) SCC 516) in C.A. No. L254 of 2018 to reckon contingent services of petitioner for computation of qualifying service to grant of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits with all consequential monetary benefits; including seniority with arrears of pay in last grade post along with periodical increments, as revised from the date of appointment of the petitioner with 100o/o compensation as per principle laid by Apex court in the case of Union of India Vs. Avtar Chand in C.A. No. 3416 - 3445 of 2010 & Batch cases dated 19.02.2019 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by applying principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article L41 of Constitution of india and pass such order or orders with costs in the interest of justice". oetitioner placinq reliance on the averments made in the DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- 5 SN, J wp 26442 2021

4. I I / a SN, J \\p 26442 2021 6 r n

6. :l No.4 7 "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 i I ) ) 7 SN, J wp]6442 202t 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 regular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as oualifving service for purpose of pension." Dersons as reqular one. hereunder:- {1 8 SN, J wp-2644'.r_2021 emolovees may have to be considered on merits in the liqht of the princioles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the liqht of this iudoment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to reqularize 'as a one-time measure, the services of such irreoularlv aopointed, who have worked for ten vears or more in dulv sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that reqular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that reouire to be filled uo, in cases where temporarv emplovees or dailv waoers are beino now emoloved. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. ....

10. The iudqment of the Aoex Court dated 2O.12.2O24. reported in 2O24 LawSuitLSC) 12O9 in Jaqso Anita and others v. Union of India and others, and 'the relevant paraoraph Nos.12, 13, 24, 26, 27 and 28 are extracted 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 dirring the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. 9 SN, J wp _26442]021

13. The claim bv the resoondents that the functionino of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irreSpective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the 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 Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It 4 l0 SN, J wp 26442 2021

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. "irregular" be considered for reoularization as a one- time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, judgment's explicit overlooking the acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. rendered indisoensable services over decades. 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, 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 employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, SN, J wp_26442J021 promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with internationat standards and setJ a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, 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 .10.2018 are quashed; ii. would be co retiral benefits." for their oost-

11. ,, "15' rt is manifest that the Appeilant workmen I t 1 { o 12 SN, J \\p_26442 2021 the Emolover's failure furnish such records- iurisprudence. Indian labour law stronolv disfavors oeroetual dailv-waqe or contractual enoaoements in onooinq municioal requirements vear after year cannot be dismissed summarilv as disoensable. aoreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recen[ judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following pa rag raphs: "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 segurity, 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 the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in govern mental operations. 13 SN, J wp 26442_2021

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: n . Misuse of "Temoorarv" Labels: Emolovees enoaoed fo work that is essentia l, recurrinq, and inteoral to the functionino of an institution are often labelled as "temoorarv" or "contractual," even w en their roles mirror ular em misclassification deorives workers of the dionitv, security, and benefits that reqular emplovees are entitled to, despite oerformino identical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. . Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. o 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 I I t4 SN, J \,p -264,12_2021 a deliberate etfort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. o 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 circumsta nces. "

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 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 reco rd. L7. In 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 enoaoed in essential. oerennial duties. these workers cannot be releoated to oeroetuat uncertaintv. While concerns of municioal budoet and comoliance with l I 1 t5 SN, J wp]6442_202t I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industribl Disputes Act, 1947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated bs 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 50o/o of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their I I t6 SN, J \\p_26442 2021 actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. ri^clc f6 rceaeciner raarrlrr.iur+ian r.ariiarrlc rlrar.a rrarrar rnnliad n n

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. "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary 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 full bench t7 SN. J wp_26442-2021 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 full bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:- "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or eontractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2) But if daily waoers, ad hoc or contractual appointees are not appointed against regular sanctioned posts. and their services are availed continuously. with notional breaks by the State Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient long period i,e. for 70 years. such daily wagers, ad hoc or contractual appointees shall be entitled to minimum of the reoular pay scale without any allowances on the assumption that work of sucli long period of time an equitable right is regularization. if any, may have to be considered separately in terms of legally permissible 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 wagen ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months."

13. under:

4. The decision in state of Karnataka v. umadevi was rendered on 10.4.2006 (ieported ih 2006 (4t SCC 7). In that case, a constitution Bench of this court hetd that appointments made / / 18 SN, J wp_26442_2021 without following the due process or the rules relating 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 Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuancb unless the recruitment had been done in a regular manneL in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the Sfafe or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further held 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 : ,, cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointmentsr as explained in S,V) Narayanappa f1967 (7) SCR 1281. R.N. Naniundapoa [7972 (7t SCC 4O9l and B.N. Nagaraian 17979 (4) SCC 5O7l and referred to in oara 75 above, of duly oualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten vears or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of reaularization of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the tiaht of the princioles settled by this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this iudgment, In that context, the Union of appointed who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned oosts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure , that rigular iecruitments are \\ t9 SN, J wp_26442_2021 "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilted : (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 70 years or more in duly sanctioned without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its should have employed the employee and him in service voluntarily and continuously for more ten years, (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be ittegal, even if irregular. where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posfs or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments wilt be considered to be iilegat. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed quatifications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had been selected without undergoing the process of open competitive selection, such appointments are considered to be irregular, (rendered on 7O,4.2OOG). 6, The term 'one-time measLtre' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of ail casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the interuention of courts anV tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posfs and possess fhe requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services, / 20 SN, J wp-26442_2021

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were stitt pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise exctuding seve'ral employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in lJmadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exerci.se was completed without 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 hetd the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of lJmadevi, 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 att the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of lJmadevi, are so considered. vacant posts. possessing the iequisite aualification, are entitled to be considered for regularizetion. The fact that 2t SN, J w_26442_202t measure.

9. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat, 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 considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of tlmadevi, If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts, This appeal is disposed of accordingly. L4. 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose / / 22 SN, J \\p _26442 _2021 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 appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary contro! vested with the State. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authority of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also refused to \ Z) SN, J wp 26442-2021 by the State. It was held that the judoment in Umadevi Punjab nor those public sector Banks can continue such a accordance with the Constitution. paras 7 and 8 reads as under: (7) We find it difficult to accept the reasoning adopted by the High Court. The right of the appellants to seek regularization flows from the G.O. No.272 dated 22.4.1994. The aopellant have been in service of the first respondent not only orior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subsequent to the issue of G.O. till today. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years t / 24 SN, J wp 26412 2021 withoLtt regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants.

8. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circuntstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' services be regularised with t:ffect from the dbte of their completing their five year continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) scc 480.

16. 2 SCC 265. the Suoreme Court held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularizataon of such appoantment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illega!, and I This decision aDDroves arlaer view exDressed in r 25 SN, J Np36442_2021 "47.... In view of the cateoorical findino of fact on the relevant contentious issue that the respondent emplovees have continued in their service for more. than 70 vears continuously therefore, the leaal principle laid down bv this Court in Umadevi case (State of Karnataka v Umadevi (2OO6) 4 SCC 7 : 20O6 SCC (L&SI 73) at oara 53 souarelv aoolies to the oresent cases. The .Division Bench of the Hioh Court has rightlv held that the respondent emplovees are entitled for the relief, the same cannot be intertered with bv this Court."

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.27602 ot 2019 which pertaans 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 of 2023 dated 10.10.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLP No.32847 ol 2024.

19. The iudqment of the Aoex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Mah arashtra and Others reDorted in AIR 2O2O Suoreme Court 3969 and in oarticular oara Nos.lOO and 1Ol held as follows: "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 mandbmus or in the nature of mandamus, but are dutv-bound to exercise such power, where the Sovernment or a publac authoriw has failed to exercise or has wronolv exercased n LO SN, J \vp_26442_2021 a ooli such disc consid ration. ion conferre uDon it bv a statute, or a ule, or decision of the Governm ent or has exercised i rreleva nt fide, or on

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.,,

20. The D ivision Benc of this Co rt in its Ju qment dated 0.06.2013 oassed in W.A.No .782 ol 2OLO nd 854 of 2O1 while uohold inq the Judom ent dated 08. 9.2010 in W.P 4377 of2 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-Corporation also issued various office orders/circu la rs dated 20.12.1989, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 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 2S-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 vts onB nch o t dated 19.09.201 7 Dassed is Court in its .Iud ment in W.P.No .272L7 of 20L7 27 SN, J wp 26442_2021 "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.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/regu larization 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 22.4.1994, 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 regu la rization/absorption exist.

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6,2017, in OA No.1442 ot 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the ,] n 28 SN, J \\'p_26J{2_2021

22. m w P.N "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (3O) years of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously working without any CoLrrt orders in their favour from 1990 till date. 48- It is not known whv he I st resn(rndent ha< n..lt

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, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the

23. This Court ooines that n the oresent case. the 29 SN, J wp_264p 2021 accordance to law.

24. This Court ooines that petitioner is entiHed for and extracted above. a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 I / 30 SN, J wp 26442_2021 c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: i)(2o2o) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) scc Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 1209 (v) (2ot7) 1 scc 148 (vi) 201o(9) Scc 247 (vii) ( 20 13) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC t797 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2O24 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 sCc 1 (xiv) 2011 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 : d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.78.2 of 2O1O and 854 of 2Ot2 while uploading the Judgment dated O8.O9.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 20OB (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 19.09.2017 passed in w.P.No.272tz of 2oL7 (referred to and extracted above), 31 SN, J wpJ6442_2021 f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 ol 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 ot 2OL9 (referred to and extracted above). g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 ofthe present order. The Writ Petition is allowed, the oetitioner is directed to out-forth the claim of the petitioner for reqularization of oetitioner's services, and also the claim ol the Dqtitioner to treat the temDorarv services of the petitioner in the last grade post of Sweeper as reqular one for all DurDoses bv orantino Iast qrade Dav with oeriodical increments rev sed from ti e to time from the date of aDDointment oft he oetiti ner and all conseouential beneflts, duly enclosinq all tlre relevant documents in support of oetitioner's case as put-forth an the present urrit natitia n within a rta r!rr.l 6f rrna fO1) raraak frrr rrr het date of receipt of copv of the ordeland thelesDondents shall examine and cons der the same in accordance to law, in conformitv with orincibles of natural iustice bv tn airtrtrtift r ni+r, f nar.can=l h rfta.ahar to +lra / -- .,--l 32 I SN, J Np 26442 2021 Court in ma Devi's case reo rted in 2(}06(4) C Paoe 1. irJl 2 1 in W. 1 ! Judomen of thas Court d ted 21.O4.2O2O assed in m IN I h irrtT N l(staalqLc v , rda ?tatti a^ .s..6i7.-+a +h6 ,) 33 SN, J wp_26442 202t Miscellaneous petitions, Petition, shall stand closed. if dfly, pending in this Writ I /1 SD/. AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ One fair copy to THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE (For Her Lordship's Kind SECTION OFFICER ALLI NANDA To,

1. The Principal Secretary, The State of Telanga.na, Panchayathraj and Rural empioymejnt Departm6nt, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

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

3. The District collector and chairman for l/inimum wages committee and District selection committee, Narayanpet District, Narayanpet.

4. The Chief Executive Officer, ZillaPraia Parishad, Narayanpet District, Narayanpet.

5. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Maddur f\Iandal, Narayanpet District, TS. 6. 11 L.R. Copies. 7. The Under secretary, Union of lndia, t\Iinistry of Law, Justice and company Affairs, New Delhi.

8. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad

9. One CC to Sri CH. Ganesh, Advocate [OPUC] 10.Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj Rural Development, High court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad IOUTI

11.Two CC to The GP for Finance and Planning, High court'for the state of Telangana, at HYderabad [OUT]

12. OneCC to Sri G. Narender Reddy, SC for ZPPS and tr/PP and GPPSIOPUC]

13.Two CD Copies s TJ GJ HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:19/08/2025 ORDER WP.No.26442 of 2021 HES 1 1 3 rE[ 2[Z5 * ') L) Y * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I