The High Court · 2025

Order

or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare tlie inaction of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitionerinor granting last grade time scale benefits to petitioner even after working on fuil time basis from 31 long years in the contingent post without any service progress on par with regularly engaged employees in the last grade post from the date of his appointment (16/0Bi 1990) to till date by paying pittance wage of Rs. 40OO/- per month by denying him to pay legitimate or living' wages in violation of provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and Article 14, 16, 21, 39(d), 43, 300 (A) of our constitution and Govt. orders issued in GO Ms. No. 193 GAD, dated 14103/1990 : U i. # \, I I i ! I , as unjust, unfair, totalli illegal, in subjecting the petitior 3r for exploiiative enslavement due to his helplessness conditions of pcr 3rty' poor social, econdmical political backlround by taking it as advantage b" the respondents in contin'uing him as contin$ent worker without any service pro 3 r:ss with monetary benefits on par with reguiar one for more than three decader:, rnd prays to direct the respondents herein lo treat lhe petitioner as regular one f om the date of his appointment (16/08/1S90, for all purposes by granting him reg rlar last grade pay benefits with periodical increments from time to time alon; with 1 00 percent compensation on the arr6ars of pay by keeping in view of i)- long years service rendered by the petition'er in contingent establishment of tl e 3rd respondent Department by applying the principles laid by Hon'ble Suprent', Court in the case of Prem Singh Vs Stater of UP, Netram Sahu and Avthar t;hand followed by Double Bench case of Kh'ader Basha with WP No. 38763 of 2( 18 and also award exemplary cost. ,i i I I I I I i lA NO: 1 OF 2021 I I t I I I Petition under the affidavit filed in directlthe responden existing last grade p I I I I Section 151 CPC praying that in the circrr nstances stated in supy'ort of the petition, the High Court r ray be pleased to ts hbrein to regularize the services of tl- r petitioner in the ost lreating the petitioner as regular or r by granting time of pay in the last grade post to the petitioner alc,r gt with periodical enls from time to tiine. I i rncrem Couniel for the PetitionJr: SRI CH.GANESH Counbel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3: GP FOR HOME ,; corn!.r for the Respon ti coun!.t forthe Respon Jent No.2: GP FOR FINANCE & PLAII llNG dent No.4: cP FOR REVENUE :5_rne clourt made the tottotaing: oRDER H;...i..' S i-1 t: :' , s,. G;#i,' ffi&*,*o & " t!, s I I 4:i a:.-. . . r.-.. 7 a ) SN,J wP 264J) 2021 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT P TION No.26433 OF 2021 ORDER Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 3, learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

2. The Detition r aooroached this Court seekino the praver as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner nor granting last grade time scale benefits to petitioner even after working on full time basis from 31 long years in the contingent post without any service proqress on par with regularly engaged employees in the last grade post from the date of his appointment (16/08/1990) to till date by paying pittance wage of Rs 4000/- per month by denying him to pay legitimate or living wages in violation of provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and Articles 14, t6, 2L, 39(d), 43, \ 4 SN,J L'.P 26433 2021

300(A) of our Constitution and Govt. Orders i;;ued in GO Ms. No. 193 GAD, dated t4/03/1990 as unjust r rfair totaily illegal in subjecting the petitioner for )xploitative enslavement due to his helplessness condition; of poverty poor social economical political background. by aking it as advantage by the respondents in continuir l him as contingent worker without any service pro lress with monetary benefits on par with regular one for more than three decades and prays to direct the respondenj s herein to treat the petitioner as regular one from the < ate of his appointment (16/08/1990) for aI purposes by gr ]nting him regular last grade pay benefits with periodical ncrements from time to time along with 100% compensat on on the arrears of pay by keeping in view of 31 long y{l trs service rendered by the petitioner in contingent esta b I shment of the 3'd respondent Department by applying th: principles laid by Honourable Supreme Court in the car; I of prem Singh Vs State of UP Netram Sahu and Av.:l ar Chand followed by Double Bench case of Khader Baslt I with Wp No.38763 of 2018 and also award exemplar'/ cost and pass..."

3. Learned counsel aDDea I tnq on behall' of oetiti ner olacino reliance on the averm ents mi1le in the affidavit filed in suDDort of the orese t writ petition Dert ren < ered bv lnlno tn Da rticular, to the servtce oetitioner with the res ond ents herein fo r mor ! than a ?* 5 SN,J wP 26433 2021 decade contends tha the oetitioner is entitled for the t relief as D raved or in the oresent writ etition. t PERUSED THE RECORD:- DISCU SSION AND CoNcLusIo N

4. Learned cou nsel a DDea rl nq on behalf of the etiti o ubmits the su h

09. o11 Pa P.No. 4asc d of thi of2 A.No.7 20LO. dated 1O.05.2013 and a!so order, dated 19.O9 .20L7 passed in W.P.No. 272L7 ot 2OL7 reDorted i 2018 (2) ALD Paqe 282 and also the order, dated 2L.o4. 020 oassed in W.P.N o.23O57 of 2019 reoo ed in 2O2O( 4) ALD Paqe 379. t

5. Lear ed Government Plea er for Ho e aDDean oon behalf o the res ondent No 3 submits that the qrievance of the oetition er as out-forth in the Dresent Writ Petition had not been addres sed to the resoond ents herein as on therefore, the oetitioner cannot com olain date a nd naction h art of r n h retn tn c rieva n f h pra ed for bv the p r and n e t etitioner in the D resent Wit oetition 6 can not be qran aq inst there D nde n Det tion er mav be direct wP SN,J -26433 202t and no Ma n da m us ca f - be issued tsh reu n er as souo h t for and the er's t-forth ed to D u t p e a u f o d it dr r h t e r s n r nta I n ot e t c a t h n a o P I ron bv v t ! herein and t1 ts DO nd ents e h would consider the sa m e tn a co rdance to lav, with in a reasonable oeriod.

6. Learned counsel aooearino on behalf of tht petitioner !, the sardsu b rssr on does notd ts ute o e nm n Pleader forHo me AD DEannq n be h rlf of th e res ondent N o.3. ebv elear I I n m a 7 c c u P s nt e others, at D t. 36 he !d a vS n e (2o 20) I o J a( esh and -0""n -employees "36. There are some of fl '"riri,! who have nol reen regularized i" .pii" rendered the services f'r 30- 40 or more ,";;;;;;;:'lns As they hur;-;;.kJ'i;"s..they have been superannrr 'ted. rsed establish r ent, not asi insi' Jn ; ;;il.Ji:.ti"--work-cha ."fi#;il"j].,Pfo;ect'-their services ou(rl t to and even "rfti',h" ;:',:,:i-!n".Government intt.r,', nnl r"":ltlil;t# ,;TJ"",:, lll,ilfl,.,l ::ffi 1l ff:,:ii rendered for more ,,.'un ,u1!. -'l case. services have t :en Court,s order, .; ';";;:Iears without the cover of rhe resurarized or',;n "J;;i#:",:i;'l;:, # ;,:il:";,, .li I I 7 SN,J *ry 26433 2021 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 ha-ve 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- atta ining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to recLive the pension as if they have retired from the reoular establi hment a d the se rces I rno servl e for ourDose of oen ion. t from eda Ib m s e a. The Aoex cou rt in the case of Dharwad District PWD ate Dai v Waoe Emolovees Ass ciation Vs. Sta e of oorted in 1990( )sccP oe 396 aid orinci ole Karnata ka Liter r the State shou dnotk EDADE rson rn emoora ce for Iono Dert od and have adh c servl persons as reqular one.

9. Para No.53 of the of the iud oment of the Aoex Co urt e State of Karn taka and other Vs. Umadevi, dated is extr cted in (2 05) 4 scc 1

4.2006 reDo rte

10.o hereu nd er "53 . One as Dect needs to be clarified. Theremavbe Dooi nt ents not illeoal ca s where lrre o ular ADD ointments)asex olai ed in S.V. Na ravana oDa 19 c 128 B N.N of d lv oual and referred to in Dara 15 abov pe ons in dulvsa nctione d vacant Dosts mioht been made andt 1 7 nti nued to vees have L979 19 e 1 >. ( 8 SN,J \LP 26433 2021 r I ten vearsor more but witho t the work for tntervention of orders of the courtso trib nals. Th e question of req ula rization of the se ,r v es of such l- on merits in the Iioht of the ori cioles settled b Court in the cas s aboverefer dto nd in the ioht of this iudqment. In that context,theU rf India, the eGo vernme nts and their Sta tns umen I ities should take steDs to re q ula rize as a one-time measure, the servi esofs ch ir ula y appointed, who have worked for te tore in dulv san tioned osts b tnotu der cover ol rrd ers of the courts or of tribunals and should furthe1 ensure that reo lar recruitme nts are underta ken o fill those vacant sanctioned oosts that require tr be filled uo, tnc ses wh ere tem orarv emolove s ol lai v wao ers are beinq now emoloved. The orocess r r ust be set in onths from this date motion with ln srx m .! il:a vears or I I t n

10. The iudqment of the Aoex Court datecl- 2O.LZ.2OZ4. reoorted in 2024 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 in Jao,l) Anita and others v ers, a nd ihe releva nt Ind ia a dot Unio Daraq ra oh Nos.12. L3. 24, 26. 7 and 8:re hereu nder: racted "12. Despite being labelled as "part- time workers," the appellants performed t tese essential tasks on a daily and contirr lous basis over extensive periods, ranging .rom over a decade to nearly two decades, t heir engagement was not sporadic or tempc rary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, re1; rtar, and akin to the responsibilities tyfi,:ally associated with sanctioned posts. Morec ver, the respondents did not engage an! r) thgl personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring - indispensable nature of their work. 9 SN.J wP 26433 202t

13. these w e t d e o the o necessitates AD pellantswas oerenn ial and fu dam ental to n tion The recurring nature of these duties classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these to private agencies after the same tasks appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. Thls act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further u ndersc ores that the work in questron 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, ill ustrating the consequences of misclassiFying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case M icrosoft classified certain workers as inde pendent 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 entiued to the same bene fits 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 em ployee benefits, thereby rncreasing their profits. Thi s judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determi ne employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It s u tn r nsu r a rk s ecet ta sr s tr me t ?9:--. .While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sou.ght to curtail the practice of backdoor'entries ano ensure appointments adhered to constitutional l0 SN,J wP 26433 202t EI -il T u r . Howe principles, it is regrettable that its princip ( s are 9ft9n misinterpreted or misapptied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees This judgment aimed to distinguish between , i egal" " irregula r" appoint ents. IL __tateooricallv held that emplove e s in irreoular apoointments, who were enoa ged in ,r rved ,l ould _ one- rnt of rtions : the : their , lack . xent : Devi r. to ) /ees/ ) plicit i rn is i orts ! velv _ )ver the judgment is being subverted when instil rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reje claims of employees, even in cases whert appointments are not illegal, but merel, adherence to procedural formalities. Gover departments often cite the judgment in Um (supra) to argue that no vested rig for temporary empl( regularization exists overlooklng the judgment's € acknowledgment of cases where regularizal appropriate. Th is sele tve aD licatio n di: the iudome t's soiritando rDose, it aoainst emo lovees who wea oonizin indispensa ble dec des. 27. In light of these considerations, ir our opinion, it is imperative for governilent departments to lead by example in providini fair and stable employment. Engaging workers rn a temporary basis for extended periods, esptrr ially when their roles are integral to the organizat on's functioning, not only contravenes internat rnal labour standards but also exposes the organi, i tion to legal challenges and undermines emplc yee morale. By ensuring fair employrr ent practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigat on, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that t rey ar€_ meant to embody. This approach a i;ns with international standards and sel: a positive precedent for the private sectc,r to services H I t I SN,J \\P 26433 2021 follow, thereby contributang to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. 2A. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated

27.LO.2078 are quashed; lt. ervtce U The appellants shall be taken on dutv forthwith and their llants shall not benefits/back wa es for the oeriod thev have not worked for but would n tnu! f servi for the said oeriod and the same wo uld be counted for their oost- retiral benefits."

11. The Judqment of the Aoex Court date 31.O1-2025 reported in 2O 25 INSC L44 in *SHRIPAL A ND ANOTHER v. GHAZIABAD". in oarticula r, the relevant NAGAR NIGA oara Nos.1 5 to 19 are extracted hereu nder: *15. It is manifest that the ADDellant Workm en continuouslv rendered their services over several vears, some imes soannino more than a decade. Even if c rtain muster rolls were not oroduc ed in full, the Emolover ,s fa iI Ure to furnish such records- lrvell-establish d inference n adv labour cti n u t2 SN,J wP 26433 202t I iurisorudence. Indian tabour law stronl lv disfavors perDetual dailv-waoe or contractual enr loements in ctrcum stances where the work IS D€ rmanent in natu re. Moral vandl qallv. w i who fulfil onqoanq munici pal reouirements vear aflter vear can not be dismissed su mmarilv as rllspe-[sa-ble, oarticularl v in the absence of a o enuir 1_ contractor aoree ent. At this juncture, it would be : tpropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite ,.temporary,, employment practices as done by a recent .,rdgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in he following paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse of temporar/ employment contracts, as exemplified in this ca:;r , reflects a broader systemic issue that adve r ;ely affects workers' rights and job security. Ir the private sector, the rise of the gig economy lr rs led to an increase in precarious employment i trangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, iob security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and tndermining labour standards. Government instituti( I s, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility tt avoid such exploitative employment practices. ! /hen public sector entities engage in misuse ()l temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrirr ental trends observed in the gig economy but ,lso sets a concerning precedent that can erode pu ) ir: trust in governmental operations. 25. It is a disconcerting reality th;,1 temporary employees, particularly in governmenl institutions, often face multifaceted forms of explo t )tion. While the foundational purpose of temporary cc ntracts may have been to address short-term or sezr: onal needs, they have increasingly become a mecha - sm to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-terrr obligations t3 SN.J wP 26413 2021 i owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: o Misuseo f "Tem oorarv"L ahe s:EM loD vees for work hat is es ral to th n "contra tual," even when their roles m I rror Su ch ification deorives workers of the miscla diqnitv, secu ritv, and benefits that reo ular recurrrn nrn titutio rontn o as "te em D vees, ees are n dto d erfo rm 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. . 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 regula r 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. " i I t4 SN,J wP 26433 2021

16. The High Court did acknowledge tl e Employer,s inability to justify these abrupt terminations, lonsequenfly, it ordered re-engagement on daily wag: ; with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regretl. bly, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant 'A c,rkmen were left in a marginally improved yet still un: :rtain status. While the High Court recognized the imporl lnce of their work and hinted at eventual regularizatio r it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaninglr I back wages commensurate with the degree of statut )ry violation evident on record. L7. In light of these Employer's discontinuation of the stands in violation of the most basic labour law principl s. Once it is established that their services termirr ted without adhering to Sections 6E and the L.). Industrial 6N of Disputes Act, Lg4l , and that th vw re !noaoed in er;.; cannot be releoated to oeroetual uncertaintv. Wh I i concerns ati nce with ( h oncerns rbliqations Indeed, leqitimate n: nuouslv in considerations, th r Appellant Workmr:r nt al bu r h de facto requtar roles for an extended peril ,d. nsi era of or ties the w m rt EE t t bs lve r s n h a

8.7 n o fin th A of th H' Cc,r rrt, to the lla w r mo t to future e c l5 SN,J wP 26433 2021 enoa qement witho ut co tin uitv dail Y-l^,aoe me n i noful back waoes- as herebv set as de with the foll owrno d irectio ns: 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, 7947, . 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 respecti ve posts (or posts aki n to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire o riod of a sence (from the date of termtnation ntil a al rein atem ent'l sha ll be counted for contin uitv of servtce and all con eo uentia! benefits. su hass en ioritv and eliqib ilitv for oromotaons. if anv, U 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. IV. The ResDondent Emolover is directed to initiate a fair and trans arent orocess req larizino the Ao ella nt Workmen within six mo ths fro ement, dulv con iderino the fact that t ev have performed the ate of reinstat n o m Droc edural Aooellan t al dut ot im t criteri a orkm e retroa ivelv if a similarlv situated t .=ffi l6 SN,J wP 26433 2021 r the extent reo ular emD lo es in the ast. v that sa nctio ned vacancies r su( duties exist or are reoui red the Resoondent I nplover shall exoedite all necessarv administra ve Drocesses to ensu re these lo notime emolo'' ees are not indefinitelv retai ned on dail waq€ s contrarv to statu torv and uitable norms. I ! t

19. In view of the above, the appeal(sr' filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal( ;) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed.', L2. The Aoex Court in iudoment reoortec in ( 20L71 L Suoreme Court Cases 148. in State of puniil 2 and others vs Jaqiit Sinoh nd others at Paras 54 and _ ts sub-paras (L)(2 )(3). of the said iudo ent observed as g nder: "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, wI upon the above controversy had conctuded, employees were not entitled to the minimum of t scale, merely for the reasont that the activitie: daily-wagers and regular employees were similer however, made two exceptions. Temporary em,t in either of the two exceptions, were held entiT the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular exceptions recorded by the full bench of the hi, impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:- ile adjudicating hat temporary te regular pay- carried on by The full bench tyees, who fell )d to wages at ,mployees. The 'h Court in the "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contr.(:ual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if ,ppointed after undergoing a selection process based upt r; fairness and equality of opportunity to alt other eligi le candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the reguler pay scale from the date of engagement (2' But if I sanctioned continu ouslv. oc 2'_ contractual ava ed notional breaks, ,v the Sfate sl ! r a sufficient da! y-wase!s,__aC 7 sts and their serurce ilv wao t h inst a o , o n n n ./ t7 SN,J wP 26413 2021 n ual aoooi ces on hoc F COn mrnt umo f allowan tees shall be entitl reoular oav scale without env the a umotion that wo ed fo such lono oeriodo ,s , time- an eo itabI,e rit ht r of if anv. m v have to be consi ered r, reQu rization, n e f (j) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale uft", -ore than three years and two months of completion of 70 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months."

13. d e re o 2 9 247 between: State M.L. Kesari and others, in Da f Karnataka and others v icula r, aras 4 to 9 readsas under: ion Be .4.2006 (.reDorted in 2006 G) SCC 1)

4. Thedecision in State of Karna taka v. Um adevi was rende red In that ca se. a of this Court held that appointments made Consti the rules relating to without following the due process or n the appointees and appointment did not confer any right o regularization or re' courts cannot direct their absorption, engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Ciui in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution shoutd not ordinarity issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment hid 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 unduly with the economic arrangiment of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nor l;nd 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 tegat right to be made permanent uniess he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 74 and 16 of the Constitution' This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : I l8 SN,J wP 26433 202t r "53. One asoect needs to be clarified cases where irreoular aooointment persons in dulv sanctioned vacant oo. been made and the emolovees iai r_! t I f o o rhere mav be (not illeoal _ NaravanapDa ora f7 972 (7) _'41 SCC 507t _ lulv oualified ioht have s continued to without the of tribunals. ' services of ,nsidered on l ttled bv this 4 t in the lioht t he Union of _ and their _'eoularize as 1'h irreqularlv L rars or more l ler cover of , and should tments are ! 'ioned posts ases where ; are beinq emolo ved. The Droce must be s1t in motion this date Dosts but notut lv sa ction te co eSt ! I a. w, hi,nst mon hs "5. It is evident from the above that there i: an exception to the general principtes against ' regularization. )nunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions aie futfilted ; (i) The employee concerned should have worked q r 70 years or Tor: i!1 duly sanctioned post without the benefit o, protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In othir words, the State Government or its instrumentality shoutd h, ve employed the employee and continued him in service t c tuntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should r t be i egal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are Dt made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum ,uatifications, the appointments wi be considered to be i egal. t tt where the person employed possessed the prescribed quall.ications and was working against sanctioned posts, but had L:en selected with.out undergoing the process of open competi )e selection, such appointments are considered to be irregilar ---2 l9 ,J SN,J wP 26433 2021 e concerned (iii) Umadevi casts a dutv uoon entali ose tr, h m o es wh without the benefit or Drote ion of anv interim orders of courts or tribunals, as a one-time measure. Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure must be set in m the dete -of its decision motion within six months (rendered on 70.4.2006). than ten

6. The term 'one-time measure' 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 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 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 were still pending before Coutts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one' time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government depaftments or instrumenta lities undeftook 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, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 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 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 ser-vice 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 umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned shoutd consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time. exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when alt the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered. r 20 SN,J wP 2643,3 202t ut in lono De ets of ! , ents/ instrumen talities do not De L The obiect behind the said direction i,l para 53 of Umadevi is two- fold. Firs ,s to ens re tha ! those who ! tous service with out the rotectio of anv interim rts or tribu als, be the date of decis tn madevi was rendered. are considered for reoularizatic tn vtew of their lono se tce. Se ensltt e that the ,J oetuate the c A lv-waoe/ad- hoc/casual for ods and thet, Deriodicallv them on the oround that they hi ,e senred for , more than ten vears, therebv defeatino the l onstitutional or statutorv orovisions relatino to rec I titment and tment. The true effect of the direcl t all tn is AD t' persons who have worked for more than t<1 I vears as on 70.4.2006 (the date of decision in llmadee ! without the cou _r tribunal. in vaca t Dosts. o ification, are en titled to be considered for tion. The fact that exerc ise of decision in lv in entitle such 'eou larization ts a one-time l. redularizatio n with Umadevi or that such exercise was unde aken teoerd to emolo vees, the rioht to srx months o I few. will notd lr the reou isite ou, conside n teri, srn., tm, L , r I measure.

9. These appeals have been pending for more han four years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appellant ( lita panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of espondents of regularization within six months of the decisio., rn Llmadevi or thereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has l rected that the cases of respondents shoutd be considered in , ccordance with law. The only further direction that needs be ) ven, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zita panchayat, Gac:t q should now undeftake an exercise within six months, a g z ieral one_ time regularization exercise, to find out whether tie e are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila ,,anchayat and'if so whether such employees (including the res nndents) futfilt the requirements mentioned in para 53 of llmad Ni. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. If : uch an exercse has already been undertaken by ignoring or 01 itting fhe cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered ir continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not futfilt the -equirements of 2t SN.J wP 26433 202t Para 53 of Umadevi, their seruices need not be regularised. lf 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.

14. In the iudq ment of the Aoex Court in Nihal Sinqh nd others v. State of Pun ab re orted in 20 3 L4 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusavely 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. acceot the defence that there werqr ctioned oosts and so there was iustifica ion for the State to utilise refuse a services of Iarqe number of Deo ole !ik llants for 22 S N,J wP 26433 2021 fall fr deca des. It held that "sanct ioned oosts do 1 heaven" and that th State has to create them bva consctous choice on the basis of me rationa! assessment of need. R errt no to Um adevi, it held th ttl 1r aooellants th ir initial emw ren arbi r n h ( nt as it had been made ln accorda nc with the statuto1l orocedure Drescribed under the Police arr I the S te cannot be heard to sav that they are not rl rtitled to be absorbed into the serva soft he Sta eotD rmanent bas sas,a ccord inqto their a Dointment! ct, 185 wereourelv t tem DOra rv and not aoain anv a nctio ed g osts created the S te. It was held that the iudqmerq in Umadevi can ot be meal icence for exoloatatio bv I he State and its instru enta lit es an neither the Go rer ment of ctor B nks ca ncc rtin ue such a Puniab nor those ublic )l Dractice inconsist nt wit their obl ioat on t r function in accordan with the Constitut on.

15. c The iudoment of the Aoex Court repErted in 2O15 ulu and othersv betw enB rt ntv L7 s N llo u cl al Cor e ts I ommissioner, i l l I l l I I 1 : I I TF ,t, !, l I I i -1 23 SN,J w? 26433 202t Nellore Di stract, Andhra Pra esh and others, in particular Daras 7 and 8 reads as under: (7) We find it difficult to acceDt the reasonino adoDted bv the Hioh C,ourt. The rioht of the aDoellants to seek reoularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994. The aooellant have been in service of the first resDondent not onlv Drior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subseo uent to the issue of G.O. till todav. The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants.

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

16. In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar reoorted (2015) a SCC 255, the Supreme Court held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularizataon of such appointment, which are arregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure securitv of emolovment of those oerso s who had served the State Government and their instru entalities for more than ten ears". o ee asw 9 ea 24 SN,J \NP 26433 2021 This decision aDDroves earlier view er ressed in I M.L.Kesari extracted above. L7. In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasad 'eported in ! en bv the 20L4 7 SCC it r 2 s Supreme Court and it was held as follows : , ' fact on the "47,,,. In view of the cateqorical findinq r tt emolovees relevant contentious issue that the respond have continued in their service for more t, tan 7O vears continuously therefore, the leqal orinciole aid down bv this Court in Umadevi case (State of Kamatqka v Umadevi (2OOG) 4 SCC I : 2OOG SCC (L&S) 73) at pat t 53 squarely aoolies to the oresent cases, The Divisiotl Bench of the Hish Court has riqhtlv held that thg - resoondent emolovees are entitled for the relief. the s2 ne cannot be interfered with bv this Court,"

18. The Judgment of this Court datecl 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.276(,2 of 2O19 whi<:l r pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshr ri Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda f) stract, which had been upheld by the Division Benclr of this Court in W.A.No.937 ot 2023 dated 1O.1O.:! )23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated

09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 ot 2O24.

19. The iudqment of the Apex Court ir Hari Krishna ! Mandi r Tru s V- State t of Maharashtra and CI hers reported ,;rr;..;l::f,&td*rgi I I l 25 SN,J wP 26433 2021 OSu em Cou rt r I1 r Nos.1O o and 101 h eld as follows: r w ere the Governmen "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 o e ercise or has wr n discretion conferred uoon t bv a statute, or a rule, or a oolicv decision of the Government or has exercised suqh discretion mala fide, or on irrelevant consideration. r

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 Division Bench of this Court an its Judqment dated 10.05.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O and 854 of 2O12 while upholdlnq the Judqment dated 08.O9.201O n a ed nW P o.2437 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No 4 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 ppellant-Corporation also issued various office orders/circula rs dated 20.12.1989, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for regularization of casual/contract employees, It ls 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 \: 26 SN,J $]P 26413 2021 learned single Judge considered all the aspects of he matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our cot sidered view does not warrant interference in these appeals'"

21. The Divisio Bench of this Court init Jud ment , ot 2OL7 dated 19.09.20 17 Dassed in W.P-No. 2727 reDorted in2 18(2)A LD oaoe 282 at Dara16 j nd para 18 C observed as un der: - * 16. It is trite that the law declared by the St 1 reme Court is binding throughout the country under Articlt 141 of the Consti[ution oi India. It is noteworthy that b/ the time the judgment in uma Devi's case (supra), was r-endered, the -proviriont of Act 2 of 1994 and G.o. Ms. '1o.212, dated 22.4.1994 , were in existence. The Suprem e Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and ,bsorption of f persons, who entered service through back dc'r rs by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for 'l )pointments to public posts, consciously ordered llr one-time a bsorption/reg ula rization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given c rections in this regard to all the State Governments and alsc Jnion of India' ThL Supreme Court is presumed to be consciou:; )f various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executi\( orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994. while gi\ i rq directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's ct;e (supra) But still, it has not made any exception in favour of I le States where State enactments banning reg ularization/. t sorption exist. .Ms - No.212, dated y,idth and the 22.4.1994. do not whittle dow the iudoment in Maniura Easrrrni's case (st rr rra), does not - ssued bv the lower the traiectorv of thedi in Uma Devi's supreme court in Para 53 of ats iudqmerd issible for the case (supra). [t is. therefore, not oerrf 2c! 1994 and G.O. r Ms. No .2L2. dated 2.4.1994. to denv l qulari tion to satisfied the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the irI loment in Uma Devi's ca s to take shelte r under (suora). 994 A !

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order Cated 27.6.20L7 , in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tri runal is set aside th€ _ direction to the and the writ oetit wed wit on ts all a-:/ ,+&1.; 27 SN,J wP 26413 2021 n a h InsDectors and aDooint them ubie 53 w I x h r o tot err satisfv no t T omonths from hed te of recer I r b m coDv of s t v a within this order."

22. he Divi n t isC rt d d 1 P 20 I.A os. f2 20i o 2 1 23 7o 201 20 AL a 379atparas 45,48an Dar 50 bserved as under: - s e-tame soondent has not ex lain e .L. K ercase of w "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on O"ifV *"g" since 1d9O and have put in almost. (30) years of t"*i.. UV now. They have been given minimum tim.e-scale from in'"' v-u*'zOOO. They have been continuously working without any 6ou.t orders in their favour from 1990 till date' 44. It is not knownwhv the 1st esar sca e (s ora) and nde reDa rtno the Iist f u ar wo rkinq aoar nst vacantDo tsa nd e reo u lariz their sen,l 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 reg ularization of services on one- arbitrary and violative of time basis are declared as illega Constitution of India; th!! 16 and 21 of the Articles 14, t o whether e a ke a dai vw oe n Tr 1n d o. s. t n a a e 1 n w in co oft e ord er." w f r ->" .-il:, :# 28 SN,J tP 26433 202t 23, This Court opines that an the oresen! case, the resoondents failed to ha r oe their dutv in examtnrnq the reouest of the D t to ner for reoula l rzation of n r' wh is workin as u n e sweeper and further to consider his reouest to treat th,! temporarv service of the petitioner in the last qrade oost rf full time sweeDer as reoular one for all purooses bv ol antino last qrade Dav with oeriodical increment revised f r om time to time from the date of aooointment of the or titioner, in accordance to law.

24. This Court opines that petitionel ls ,:ntitled for consideration of petitioner's case fo!" qrant of _ he relief as prayed for in the present Writ Petition in ',iew of the observations of the Apex Court in variou:i iudoments (referred to and extracted above) and the - riew of the Division Bench of this Court in the Judqmenl: referred to and extracted above.

25. Takinq into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. I I 29 SN,J wP 26433 202t b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and tearned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4. c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: ix2o2o) l scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12o9 (v) (2017) I scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) SCc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 sc0223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD pase 282 (xvi) 2O20(4)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.l82 of 2OlO and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dated O8.O9.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 ol 2007 and C.C.No.48 of 20O8 (referred to and extracted above), I l 30 e) .The Division Bench order of this (: )urt dated 19.09.2017 passed in W.p.No.2 7217 of 2Ot7 ( referred to and extracted above), SN,J wP 26433 2o2t f) The Division Bench order of this (r. urt dated 2l.O4.ZO2O passed in f .A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 o, 2O19 and W.P.No.230 57 of 2Ol9 (referred to and extract( d above). g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present o.der. he Wr tP tati ni ut- al o rth the claim D direc ed to r rI a nof et ti er s (! :itio ner t e Del tion er t f tc s a als Q the claim t of thED ationer o tr Detiti oner tnt he la tqr de o t of s eEDer a t, ral te D u s sb a erv :es of I t e !qular o e wifl! periodica! a t n n f ts d e e o h lo ln a u t d ti lo e s wt hi o shalle mine andco nsr { he m a d e e r t e date of t o I ;eouentia I C ! rments in the D e e t 1 w eir -trs.I!_!t'c dt he :! oondents tne tn acc (, 'd nce to h s fo e d e I I t_ 3l SN,J wP 26433 2021 I w ln con mi h o na a u n f h Detitioner, in term of orders DA ssed bv the Supreme er on h n a evi' o di 2 6 s P e e d e a n P o 77 of 20 7 o8 .o9. 201O re DO di n2O 11 1) LD, Paqe 234 ndas !n o a2 al oa sDerDi vtsro NBenc f2 10 Ju om nt 1 0 o1 fth ts Cou rt dated a o 2 01 2 D a 2 n o 2 o 20 7 d e e I.A. Nos.l of20 2O in 1of 20L9in d u 0 20 .P.N o.23 o57 f20 19 e D !n 37 w ch 20 4 e final itv within aDe todoffo ur (O4) eeks fromthed te of receiDt of acoDV oft his order dulv ta kinqin to consid ratio nth observations and the awlaid d the Aoex Court tn the vaflous iud qme nts referred to and c a iud qment of Karnataka v n v the A 'x c,ourt tn 'he 5 se ofState of a vi an d dulv comm un! te he H t e al be er s c s q i j I 32 SN.J wP 26433 202t Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending n this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. ,TRUE COPY// SD/- S. MAL- KARJUNARAO ASSISTAI T REGISTRAR z" '_q SI: )TION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon,bte MRS JUSTICE SUREPAL- NANDA (For Her Ladyships Kind perusal) i Affairs, New Dethi I

1. 'l 1 LR Copies. l 2. The Under Secretaly, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justicr: lnd Company 3. The Secretary, TelJngana Advocates Association Library, F i rh Court 4. The Principal Secrelary, Home Department, Telangana Secr rlariat, Buildings, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. I To,

5. The Principal Secrefary, Finance and planning Department, jecretariat, I

6. The Commi..ionur. tf police, Hyderablad City, Basheerbaglr Hyderabad. 7 The District coflectJr and chairman for Minimum wages c.r .lmittee District Selection Committee, HVOeirOaJ'Oi.ii"Ci, UVO"raO, I Hyderabad . IOUTI 1

8. One CC to SRt Cx iCarursu Advocate tOpUCI I Two CCs to G-P fOh nOfrle, High Court for the State of Te i ngana at '10.Two CCs t9 gf ph REVENUE, High Court for the State of fetangana at 11.fwo CCs to Gp FOR FTNANCE_& PLANNING, High Court f : . the State of Hyderabad . [OUT] I - " " 'r' !v' I rrvr I I Telangana at Hyde/abad tOUTi

12. Two CD Copies PMK GJP !?- i*r tli I I i I I I i l i ":! I I I I t HIG COURT t DATED:11112120 5 I CI: TODAY f I I I ; i I r oRoeR : WP;No.26433 of 021 lrir- , B Y rit 2l]2$ ( i f')" 17 ..) '*t \!\-. - r<. ".\- i : .. tt. ri,l:, +s. #; Tf s, E ltt: Ie !r. ia:l ,f.r :1 ALIOWING THE WRIT PETITION ;ir:,i HOUT COSTS W -[t\\Yr- ,. . 'J.., F;1-".{-;' ,. - I l I I I