The High Court · 2025 on 16 Jul 2025

Order

Heard Sri CH.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-Il appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.l to 3 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5.

2. The Detition er aDDroached the Court seekinq Draver 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 temporary appointment provided to the petitioner on compassionate grounds in the year 1993 as per G.O. Ms. No. 687, dated 03.10.1977 and G. O' Ms. No. 661, dated 23llO/2OOB to till date by paying starving wages of Rs.1623/ per month from 28 tong years ignoring legitimate wages payable to the petitioner as per Section 13 and 15 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Section 4 of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 R/W Article L4, 16, 21, 39(d),43 and 300(A) of our Constitution as highly illegal, unjust, unfair and violation of the 5 SN. J provisions of the said Acts and our ConsL tution prays to direct the respondents herein t,l treat petitioner as a regular one in the last grad,l post from the date oF appointment by applying the prin: pte laid by the Honble Supreme Court in C. A. No. 6798 of 2Ol9 dated 02.09.2019 in the case of prem Singh vs State of U. P. (2019 (1) SCC 516) and with further : rection to release all the consequential monetary benr: its of the last grade post w.e.f. 22.lt.lgg3 to till date From time to time with 100o/o compensation on arrears of pay as per the principre raid by the Honbre supreme (r )urt in cA No. 3416-3445 of 2OLO, dated 19/02/2019 ir the case of Union of India Vs Avatar Chand (2019 3 AtD SC 32) by awarding heavy cost and pass...,, 3 Lea rn co nsel AD earln ta on r it fit d a a n u oertaln ln I,artic Detitroner with the resDon en ec d c a nth a e f h la t, tot he etr, rlf of e ts rr tade int he vvr it pe t t rde red bv n lrC fl erein for rr )re tha n t r s I [:d for the o rel ef s ra e fo tn h t titi n PE SED H R c R I c o DC N L I 6 SN, J

4. Learned counsel aooearinq on behalf of the petitioner submits that the subiect issue in the oresent case is squarely covered bv the order of this Court, dated O8.O9.2O1O Dassed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 reporled in 2011(1) ALD, Paqe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O, dated 10.06.2013 and also order. jated L9,O9-2JJ12 Dassed in W.P.No.272L7 ot 2OL7 reoorted in 2o1a (2) ALD Paqe 282 and also the order dated 2L.O4.2O2O oassed in W.P.No.23O57 of 2019 reDo in 2O2O(4) ALD Paoe 379.

5. Learned standinq counsel appeari[q on behalf of the resoondent No.4 submits that the orievance of the !oner -forth in the resent W Pe been addressed to the resDondents herein as on date and therefore, the oetitioner cannot comolain inaction on the n I :l n h in in nsiderin the rt the oetitioner and hence, th relief as D ved for bv the oetitioner in the oresent Wit Detition can ot be oranted n and no Mandamus can be issued aqaanst the resoondents hereunder as souqht for and the oetitioner mav be directed to Dut-fofth the Deti oner's orievance as out- forth in the oresent writ P tition bvw avo a detailed t f 7 SN, J rese nta ton to the resDonde _ and uoon of h a! e t e rea on !e eri a d a on a r an I , ents wou td la ra w hin a

6.L rned coun sel AD on beh alfoft EDetitio h d sn t u e d eb the lear ed s c un the res DOndent No.4

7. The L h s c S) in Prem Sinqhv Sta u ra 6h d u t d _ n (2O2O) 1 of Uttar Il'adesh and 'Cou".nr.nt

"36. There are some of the employees who have r ot been regularized in spite of having rendered the-seJcr: ror:O_ 40 or more years whereas tney rrave oee;;;p;;., nuated. As they have worked in the work_cf,".g"o -"IGbi ;hment, not against any particular project, tfreir- serviiei I ught to have been regularized under ihe iir;r -uctions a_nd even as per the decision of this Courf in' ;tate of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. ffris Court in he said decision has laid down that in case ,";i;; hr,,e been rendered for more than ten years without the cove : of the Court's order, as one_time .""rr.u, t;"- ;;;, ces be I:::1".11"!, "f such, emptoyees. rn $re' racti J t . .ur", rnose employees who have worked for ten years ,r more :l9r.lq hg.r" been regularized. It would ""r U" i r rper ro regulate them for consideration of regularization l,: otners have been regularized, we direct tfiJ tf,Ei-r"ruces be treated as a regular one. However. it is made i r ar that they shall not be entiUed to claiming unV Ar", of lrr erence in wages had they been continu6d in service -r gularly 8 SN, J before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the reqular establashment and the services n b t rI the work-ch roed establishment shall e counted as oualifvino service for DUroose of oension." h

8. The Aoex Court in the case of Dha rwad District PWD Literate Dailv Waoe Emolovees Association Vs. State of Karnataka reD rted in 1990(2) SCC Paoe 396 laid orinciole h the S n em orar adhoc se ice for lono oeriod and have to treat such oersons as reqular one. Para h f d m f heA ex in the S te of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi dated 10.o4.2006 reoorted in (2o(J6)4SCClis extracted hereunder:- n n aI intments where irre u Iar 1 scR 128 I rn/ EN N.atr. "53. One asoect needs to be cla rified. There mav be aooointments) as exolai ed in S.V. Nara vanaooa 1 72 4 sca<n 7 t \ c cc 409 and referred to in oara 1 5a bove of dulv oualified Ita r. rc at lt rc ir drr been made and the emDlovees have con inued to work for ten vears or more but without the anterven ion of orders of the courts or of ribunals. The q estion of reoularization of the services of such emolo ees mav have to be consider ed on merits ln f he liathtof fha n rItl rrt in th !es catlla.l rro 7 Prr-r this f n + riar sts t?t +h l^li v n R ^r 9 bove ef rr t I dqm en fn tha t state Governm en s o k w o n e e r u r b n ls c va cant sanction t h n we b n lo wit to a din r n o r n SN, J h nt n of Indta, the in sl rumentalities a .one-time !; u Iv AD DOi n I r o re in dulv ! 1 f o ordersoft he ()'en ure a n _ io fill those tt b fit edu d ilv w qe ust be set in ) ou !re I a €

10. T e t f d 2 2 others v Unio L w t f cl 20.L2.2024. 1 f Ani a nd n taa d o e and I he retevant a hN s 2 1 here u nd er: 4 2 7 n 2 eextract d ou..pta9 being tabetted as ,,part_ ime ..1_r:. l_1_kgT"l,' rhe appefiants perto.-[J'l,t,ese essentiat tasks on a daily inJ'"o-itln. orc basis over extensive periods, ians-in;"i -orn over a decade to nearly two'aecaies] .i ,"i. :19_19"-"1t was not sporadi. oi-t"rip., u.y rn nature, instead, il -.r,i,,-' i;T': ':"$;ffii[::t,;"ot ""a ii,? associated with sanctioned posts.- f,roi"!,r r"., the respondents did ;iHrd;' ..1=iin". personnel for the appeuants -t.nr."-,t" jffi:?r"iH[, Iff indispensabte nature of th;;;;;;;: 13. t e "'" n T I t w t 3S 'he : r h n l0 SN, J apoellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioninq of the offices. The recurrin s 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 seryes 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 hiqhliqhts the iudiciarv's role in rectifvinq such misclassifications and en su rino that workers receive fair treatment.

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are SN, J e e d a "irregular" y on its dicta to indiscrimi ul ra oi m ts o oFten misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of lon g serving employeet; This judgment aimed to distinguish between "il egal" appointrr ents. I eld th i €(!r r h :d in d )ne- rt of :ion s n ent DeVi rlicit )rts |cIY oh ave ! ver However, the laudable intr: the judgment is being subverted when instit.t nately reject claims of employees, even in cases where appointments are not illegal, but merely adherence to proced ural formalities. Goverrl departnrents often cite the judgment in Uma (supra) to argue 9rl regularizati on exists for tempora ry emplol overlooki ng e)( a ckncr,,ledg ment of cases where reg u la riza tic appropriate. that no vested ri ita tn em lo judgment's w r n decades. s r

27. In light of these considerations, ir our 9?!ni9n, it is imperative for govl.n r ent departments to lead by example in pr-ovidin(l fair and stable employment. Engaging *o.t"ii ',-,r u temporary basis for extended peiioOs, eife,: atty when their rotes are integral to tfre orian-iiati ,n,s functioning, not only contravenes iriternat,r nal raDour standards but also exposes the organiztr ion to legal challenges and undermirr"s d-p1., ,"" morale. By ensuring fair employnt :nt practices, government institutions',,.. reduce the burden of unnecessary iiiigati ln, promote job security, and upholi he principles of justice and fairness that il ey are meant to embody. This approach alil ns with international standards - and ,"is a t2 SN, J positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing 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.2Ol8 are quashed ; i h a r The aooellants shall be taken aa. on dutv forthwith and their forthwith. servtces !lants clr ll rrzrt lro l{arerarrar entitled Decuntarv benefits/back wa es for the oeriod thev have not worked for but would be entitled to co nuitv of services lra ca m A fo r tha |c1 rl narind counted for their Dost- n lr I benefi

11. The Judoment of the ADex Court dated 31.01. 2025 reoorted in 2O25 rNsc 144 a rrsHRIP AL AND ANOTHER V. AR NI AM GHAZ articu h relevan r 1 19 are extr r "15. It is manifest that the Aooellant Work men continuouslv rendered their services over severa! metames rtain muster roll we re not oroduced i n ful!, urnish such record s- , n adve r.ca r Even if the Em over's failure t dasnite .l lr pr'j aons ore t do rErat-allo llrrc f II l3 SN, J R n n s n( well-establishr inferen ce un der I UrtSDrudence. Indian labour lawst I !v disfavors DErDet ual ailv -wa contractual toeme nts in I ctrc umsta nces w re thew ork iSD 5 rmanent in nature. Morallv and leoal !v, wor er!; o r I after vear ed su m .1 lisoensable, r it would be il >propriate to of indefinite "temporary,, rdgement of he following particularlv in the absence of a oenuinl aoree ent. At this juncture, recall the broader critiq ue employment practices as done by a recent j this court in Jaggo v. Union of fndia in paragraphs: -'22. The pervasive misuse of temporarl, contracts, as exemplified in this cai< broader systemic issue that adve- workers' rights and job security. In sector, the rise of the gig economy l- i in-crease in precarious Employmeni ar 'benefits, often characterized by lack of and fair treatment. Such practices criticized for exploiting workers and labour standards. Goveinment institutio. with upholding the principles of fairnes:; bear an even greater responsibility ii, exploitative employment practices. \^ sector entities engage in misuse of contracts, it not only mirrors the detrinr observed in the gig economy but 3 concerning precedent that can erode publ governmental operations. 25. It is a disconcerting reality tha, temporary particu I a rty i n g overn m e n r n siif utions, :TI]"y^"^"^=, _ often race multifaceted forms of exploitt tion. While the foundationat purpose of temporaiy .,, ,iiult, ,uy employment , reflects a ;ely affects the private s led to an 'angements, ob security, have been r n de rmin ing s, entrusted and justice, avoid such hen public temporary lntal trends so sets a c trust in t4 SN, J 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: h f secur! I!() rarv n institutio inte ral to suse of "T Labels: Emnlovees rtno. oM e m enoaoed fo work that is essentia n are often "contractual," even those of misclassific tion deorives work rso f labelled as "tem orarv" or en their roles mirror reoular emDloYe es. Such and b re ula emolovees are entitled to, desoite performinq 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 regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, t5 SN, J and paid leave, even when their decades. This lack of social security and their families to undue hardshipr cases of illness, retirement, c I circu msta nces.,, ten u re spans ;ubjects them especially in u nforeseen

16. The High Court did acknowledge ti e Employer,s inability to justify these abrupt terminations. )onsequenfly, it ordered re-engagement on daily wagt:; with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrette bly, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant \\crkmen were left in a marginaily improved yet stiil un<r:rtain status. While the High Court recognized the import rnce of their work and hinted at eventual regularization it Failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningf_ back wages commensurate with the degree of statu _, rry violation evident on record. 17. In light of these considerations, th: Employer,s discontinuation of the Appellant Workmer stands in violation of the most basic labour law princip ( s. Once it is established that their services were termiri ted without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U, ,. Industrial Dispqtes Act, L947, and that thev were 1 no aqed r-n ca nnot be w [: concerns m ;t ce th e worker d e n a R I tc alb m n der ta e he m o equitable ita on c e a r entitl u n : r concerns l rblioations Ind d, he leqitimate nts. u d l6 SN, J riqhts of workmen who h ve served continuouslv in de facto reoular roles r an extended oeriod.

18. The imouqned order of the Hiqh Court, to the extent thev confine the Aooellant Workmen to future dailv-waqe enqaqement without continuitv or meaninqful back waqes, is hereby set aside with the 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 period of absence (from the date oJ termination until actual reanstatement) shall be counted for continuitv of service and all conseouential benefits, such as senioritv and romotions if I II[. 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 Resoondent Em l, lover ts d rected to anataate a fair and transDa rent Drocess for reqularizinq the Aopellant Workmen within six 17 SN, J f n sf n d r n sts. D I o a ula riz atron, a e ent dulv ! ha rr : performed e a tn (D rmanent th e L cational or li:d to the w A oellant w rk en or to si ila '!v situated in th the extent T,] that sanctionedvaca ct for such duties exist th R expedite all nece sarv administr titr e Drocesses es are not !o o ( :s co trarv to en Err oloYer s IM r n cti ell t m o t e e n a u n d o I s

19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) .ited by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed.,, c L2. T s preme CourtCases 14a inState of Puni ab and v J o n I di n (2OL7 1 ) P <t 54 an it sub- ar s 1 2 t m n s urrr ler -conctudid, b "54 "The Futt Bench of the High Court, whire adjudicating upon the above controv:r?y hgd tr:., t temporary employees were not entitted io tn" iiniiiriZr ti= regutar pay- scale, merely for the reason, that the activities c )rried on by resutar emptoyees *.;-;;;;i;;. 7 te rutt bench 1"^:!I:.y:_n":Znd. nowever, made two exceDtions. Temporary eipto, )es, who felt in either of the two exceptions, ..i niil .ntitt",t to wages at t!.:_!,:!ru. of the pay-scatu iru*i o,y-rir;i;';';;. )toyees. rhe ?:=l!,:r?.*9.rded by the fuil nencn'or-iii-ui| Court in the rmpugned judgment are extracted n"reurdii _' ",' '!J). A dgily wager, ad hoc or contractL,, t appointee against the regutar sanctioned posts, ii-iii'oii[la urt., 18 SN, J 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 dail reoular ADDO'N sanctioned a,osts and their serutces are availed d hoc ted aoainst 's ate not aD Do n n I with n I brea lzc hv .sfa i.e. for 7O Govern ent or its instrume ntalities for a ufficient rs- such dailv wac,e rs- ad lono oe hoc or cont, ctual ADDO ntees shall be entitled to I minimum of the reoula r oav scale wi out anv on the assumotion that work of allowan Derennra I nature is availab le and havino uilthla created in such cateoorv of a,ersons. Their claim for tion. if anv- ma v have to be considered reoula separatelv in terms of leqallv Dermissible scheme. riod of n n ;i (3) In the event, a ctaim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 70 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months." ment of the A ex rt re o in 2O1O een: state of n taka an h rs

13. scc 2 7 n o hers a rticul aras 4 under: In t. f Karnataka v. Umadevi inS reDorted in 2OO6 4 SCC 1 4 t case a on 70.4.20O6 ConstitutioD Bench of this Court held that appointments made 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 continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular mannea in terms of the t9 SN. J c^olstllutio.lal scheme; and that the coufts must be careful in u_!:!|ns that they do not.inteffen uriily ;ii th" economic arrangement of its affairs ly the State or'its ir,: trumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments tiAciititt the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory *rra"lir.'ll i ; Court further l":d_,:!:! a temporary, contractuat, casuat o, a daity_wage emptoyee does not have a legal right-;;-;" ;rde permanent 72fy ne had been appointed in terfrs ,itri,iant rutes or in actherence of Artictes 74 and rc of tni ciisiitr:,1r. This court however made one exception ti n" lit,on and the same is extracted below : "r-tne "uri''),, a s n n 9 d I f€ s 'h u f s I o u de n o e n loMD a ,n n ,, 7 t o a a on f u n f e e State Govefn e s t n n r f 'ar ac, nt sa I e ThED rocess u be Sr es €fl I t d. th e ts '_ (not iltegat 1'la rayanapDa E a f7972(1) cc a7 a,ua 1 miqht have a o tin ed to vithout t _ tf tribunals. t_ services of t., tsidered on tled bv this the lioht eUnton of a dth toularize as , irreoularlv trs ol more :r cover of ,n should i ?rents ! 2;es where efl are beinq in motion t e t :: : t: a c '1 "5. It is evident from th9 above that there is tn exception ,: tunciated in to the general principles against ,,.gil"r;itiorl Umadevi, if the fottowing conditions ui" ritriiii',' l) The. emptoyee concerned shoutd have worked for 10 years or more in dury sanctioned post without tne oineii or t rotection of 20 SN, J the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular, Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. But where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications 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. Umadevi nt ot Govern reoula instrumen litv. to take steDs to the serryices of those irreoularlv aooointed who had without the benefit or orotection of anv interim orderc of v ore t, n ern that s o h (rendered on 7O.4.20O6). f its

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 casua!, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of cou rts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite quatification for the post and if so, regularize their services. 7, At the end of six months from the date of decision in umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad -hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. ConsequentlY, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or 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, the employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 2t -, 53 of .the decision in umadevi, wi not tose tl considered for regularization,' merely- b;;;;, exercise was completed witi.tout ,i'rriiri" ?:?i?:_,rh., six, month period mentioned in pZrti nas expired. The one-time exercise shouli co.t ::1:ru?r/those emptoyees who had pui r cononuous service as on 70.4,2006 withot,r protection of any interim orders of "ourtr'iii) employer had held the one_time exercise in i.il,, Umadevi, but did not consider tne casisii siie", were entitted to the benefit of para SS of uiaiii, concerned should consider their cases "6, ;;; the, one-time exercise. The one time exercise v,/.,1 onl_y when-all the employees who are entitted'n, tn terms of para 53 of umadevi, are so considirirt a U, a b a v, t n t, u n t e ir lo rt e m I SN. J eir right to be the one-time leir cases, or 53 of Umadevi ;ider all daily- 70 years of availing the bunals. If any ; of para 53 of mployees who the employer 'ontinuation of be concluded be considered /Fi; n .,/ r tt1 oara 53 of 2t those who servlce , of courts or macLevi was in view of t at the ,etuate the v-waoe/ad- oeriodicallv t served for 'nstitutiona I 'tment and a all vears as on without the b na tn ication. are ,e fact that txercise of lecisiontn ,:eno lv tn Cfi rtitle such l rularization i a one-time 'r t I in te sof hea ve t measure. 9. These appeals have been qending for more th.1 t four years after the decision in umaaevi. ini",app":1fii i;'i'tt panchayat, Gadag) has not considered me- 1 onaents of 'ci{eJ-'oi ,ies tn Uma r 22 SN, J 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 exercisq 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 Umadevi. 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 7 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 lJmadevi, 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, t4. In the iudqment oftheA ex Court in Nihal Sinoh t4 c.^a C+-+a of Drrnir rnd zrtho 1 2l D 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 wene 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 23 SN. J control vested with the State. It held that the :reation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authority of the Stat(, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but ctr, rse to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. rt arscl refused to n oned oosts o t t a e ef nc t e u n rv ce of la e ca es. I hel u at "sa cta n I atr: to tita se Lrellants for nr)t fall f m heaven" and thatt e h s crea e:h a of e . Ref rfl o a v b or t em wer n twa no an' n a e n c j rSSeSSment thr1 appellants t reir initial er t sitha d r oroced re D rescribed under thePo 7,861 a d _ the State a r o :r tled to be a o b h rd to a s b to th s rvt a R a cc rdin t f a atn a I rermanent l, :re ourelv o s created 24 SN, J bv the State. It was held that the ud oment in U cannot become a licence for exD o tat onb the Sta its instrumentalities and neither v I the Government of te and madevi Puniab nor those oublic se rBe nks can conti uen such a practice incon astent with their obliqation to function in accordance with the Constitutioo-

15. The iudq ent of the Aoex Court re rted in 2015 SCC Online SC L797 betrneen B.Srinivasulu and othersv Nellore Municioal Corooration Rep.bv its Commissioner, Nellore District, Andhra P,radesh and others. in oarticular oaras 7 and 8 reads as under: (7) We find it difficult to accept e reasonino adoDted bv the Hioh Court. The rioht of the a ellants to seek reoularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994. The aooellant have been in service of the first resoondent not onlv orior to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subseauent t'o the issue of The respondent Municipality being a statutory G 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 wo* from the appellants. 'tl

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. 25 SN, J

16. In m ka rh :d (2O15) 8 e SCC 265. the Supreme Court hetd that .Tlr e objective behind the exception carved out in this case ur; rs to permit regularization of such appointment, which a .e irregular but not illegat, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensu _;ecuritv of e Io of tho I n nd hei u r th t This ecrsion ADDrove .L.K sari ex rac da e w n ei, I t eSt te n a o tg r 29 vears. ex E 2 4 7 cc 223 s! Su Drem eCourt and it was ila r w held asf llows: ori, I no of "4 7 nvt wo f the t nte t have contin ed I n l. I e th s Co rt in Uma 4 c7 2 s h Cou t s a e s L n are entitled for d ith h s c, I a ne tha rna k lief. the m 1 eoorted in (n bv ract on the emolovees n 7O vears d down hv i v Umadevi .,i3 souarelv nch of the 'esoondent c, ( 26 SN, J

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6-LZ.2OZZ passed in W.P.No.276OZ of 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.937 ot 2O23 dated 1O.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated

09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 ot 2024.

19. The iud ment of the x Court in Hari Krishn a Mandir Trust V. State of Maharash tra and Others reoorted in AIR 2O2O SuDreme Court 3969 and in oarticul ar Da ra Nos.lOO and 1O1 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 mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are dutv-bound to exercise such ra ublic overnm h rt f it h n it bv a statute. or a rule. or discre ion conferred u a poli cv decision of the Governm ent or has ex rcised uch da eva nt s consid ration. (tro n irre! retaon mala Do

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. e Division B 27 c e 2 1 o 2 1 w it u h w.A. Ju w.P N 2 37 f o observed as under:- SN, J i s Judoment | )1O and 854

8. 9. o10 rl ,48 of 2OO8 Co 7 d "Further, it is manifest from the material on i cord that the services of the simitarty.ptaced p";r;n;-;;; apprr ached the law Courts we-re regutarized. rn"-#p"ri"ri-ioiooru, ,rn also issued various office orders/circutars i5t"o ioli)Ir989, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and rarest u"ing +.).i066']1. .., urarization of casual/contract emoloyees, lt'i, ufso to-0" slen tf rt Section 25_ T of the to nct prorriuit= ,LiuiilJfo"r. ,il;" b,/ any emptoyer or workman. As can be seen from in! i".irrr :;:enario of the cases on hand. engaging the respond"ltJ ro. su.h a rong and continuous period of 11ml 9n .urruf O"rJ is'not., ng but unfair labour practice attracting rne piovisiJns-'ir'"s".,,r r 25-T of the ID Act. The learned.Sinffe luOle *nif" ."lyiig on the decisions of the Apex Courr, rightiy r,"ra ir,"i ii" .Ilona",,, s are entitted to regularization as "ii :^ ::U:l"j r ea rn e-d, i, gi" I ; o e " i i ; detail, in the prop6r perspective, which, in our c,) tsiclerecl view does not warrant interference i" ir,"r"-"ipuJr..,, :;::: :""1J r,XT'; "tr" "

21. d te D as onB n ts Judqment

19. 09. 2017 Dassed tn .P. o. 7 2L'.1 of 20 7 e d n o18 2 LD a e 2a a 1 EI rd oara 18 observed as under:- "16. It is trite that the taw declared by the Sup -r binding throughout the country under Article Constitution of India. It. is notewortf.V ,n"i''iV , judgment in Uma Devi,s case (supra), *ui, .= provisions of Act 2 of lgg4 anO frlr. rv, 22.4.1994, were in existence. ffre iupre'me '< denouncing the practice of regutarizitio. i"i'iu. persons, who entered service ihrougr., 0".[ ooo=r, 'C.Ci. me Court is 141 of the re time the ldered, the 212, dated ourt, while :rption of f by giving a 28 SN, J go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time a bsorption/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.t994, 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/a bsorption exist. Therefo re- Act 2 of 1 I 4 1OO andG .o- Ms. No.21 22.4_1994- d(! n(rt whiftl e down t he raridth and thF igdgment in Maniura Eashinib case (supra), does not bv the lower th Supreme Court in Para 53 of its iudoment in Uma Devi's for flra 4 nd oula riz tiont o Ms. No.21 2. dated 2 _4_199 4 the oeti oners who have admittedlv. satisfied the Um It is the ake shelte aiectorv of th d rections issu naf narrniccih ria laid .53 o Act Devi's ca (suora). n nts to

18. For the aForementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2017, in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ Detition is allow with the directi n to the o r h t sfvi no Insoectors and aoooint the m subi ct to their sa the cri eria laid down in Para No.53 of the iudom ent tn Uma Deyi's case (suora). This process must be comoleted ov of within two months f rn the date this order." rece Dtofa ti ro

22. The Division Benc o fr his Co rt rnt ts Ju me o a dated 21.O4.2O2O Dassed in I.A-Nos'.1 of 2O2O in 1 c 20L9 and W.P.No.23057 of 2o 1I reDo n 2020r4)ALD Daoe 379 at oaras 45- 48 and Dara 5O observed as under:- "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from 29 SN, J lle Iear 2000. They have been continuously ,t rrking without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 tiif !ai ,.' n h n d r a m u h ln o a 4 s qulart a e heir se t n u n n a e o h t o e 1 D s s a u a c e c n ! e( e th s uDra). as ke a dailv waqe n ( n (1O) vears T 1 bunals as on i 'icatio as to sts and o s, and if so, ti n

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; lhe impugned orders dated 20.8 .2019 passed by the 1st respo i lent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of se - ,rces on one- time basis are declared as illega l, arbitrary arr, I violative of Artlcles 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution c' India; the o !-time basis ttr r petitioners e :s from the a n e _ ;hall not be re tef Th sarde er :ise shall be E f receiot of entit!ed n I e of coov of the order.,, 2 w a e o n B a I

23. T ts o n in th o ts failed to ts har th tr ti oner u t _ case, the _ examininq t zation of ti o t n e wh i w rki I rn1 3 SWeeDer r n der hi u st o re rv! e f e e ti er rn he a I d th _:emDorarv o t cf ful! t e s r ra e a w h r odi e I il ur s rE nt!no la st n I m nt vt ed fro m time to 30 SN, J time from the date of aoDot ntment of th Det itioner accordance to law.

24. This Court ooines that oetit ner o s entitled I r consideration of Detitioner's se for orant of the relief as nrarrar{ fnr in +h nt Wri j Pa+ ition in view of +ha observations of the Aoex Court in various iudoments (referred to and extracted above) and the view of the Division Bench of this Court in the Judoments referred to and extracted above. 25, Takinq into consideration:- 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 behalfof the respondent Nos.4 & 5 c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: ix2o2o) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 { SN, J 31 (v) (2017) t scc 148 (vi) 201O(9) Scc 247 (vii) (2013) l4scC 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC LtgT (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (20,'4) 7 scgzzs (xi) SLp No.32847 ot ZO24 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2o06) 4 scc 1 (xiv)^2o11 (t) ALD, page 234 (xv) 2o18(2)ALD pase I82 (xvi) 2O2o(4)ALD pise 379 d) The Division Bendh order of this (: )urt dated !.0.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.7BZ of 2O1O rnd 854 of 2012 whire uproading the Judgment dated 0g.09.2010 passed in W.p.No.24977 af 2CO7 a:rd C.C.No. tB of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Cr urt dated L9.O9.2017 passed in W.p.No.272L7 of 2}irt (-eferred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Cc urt dated 21.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 c,t 2O19 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2A19 (referred to and extractr: I above). g) In the tight of discussion and conclusion a:; arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present or der. r. ': ) ) 32 SN, J f'he Writ Petition is allowed, the petitioner is directed to out-forth the claim of the Detitioner for' reqularization of Detitioner's services, and also the claim of the oetitione r to treat the temoorarv services of the itioner in the las r e f w ular one for all DurDoses bv orantino Iast qrade oav with oeriodical increments revised from time to time from the date of aooointment of the etitioner and all conseouential benefits. dulv enclos tnoal I the relevant documents in D u ort of itioner' u t tion within a eriod of one (O1) week from.the ate of recei of co of the order and shall examine and consider the same in accordance to law, in conformity with prancaples of natural iustice bv providinq an opportunaty of personal hearinq to the petitioner. it Lerms of orders passed by the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case reDorted in 2OO6(4) SCC Paoe 1, the iudoment oassed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 dated O8,O9.2O1O reoorted in 2O1L (1) ALO. Paqe 234 and as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 1O.O6.2O13, and also as per Division Bench Judqment of this Court dated \ t 33 t-, SN, J L9. .20 7 ass di w- N 27 L7 f2 O7 reDOrted in 2 18 ALD a d :al e tvl ;lon Bench I I d en of ..,-tli t2 20 .No 1 I 2 o I finali within.€ co sid ra n -.2.1. 4 o2 Dassed ln tn w.P o.23 57of2 o 19 3a w ich hid atta ined .of,fiiur (04) eks fr, mthed te o er I a d th wl:rd I own bv ref€:r red to and e rt' n o a v d I ra Nr: 53 Karn ta iudsm ent of J he -{au,t tn the case o' Stafeof r icate the decisron to the Detitioner. Howev r,t here s.l rall be no order astocosts. com mt a d t Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending ir.r this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. Sd/-S.MI LLIKARJUNA RAO ASSIl TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ".-7' SECTION OFFICER Qne Fair Copy to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTICE SUREPI LLI NANDA (For Her Ladyships Kind Perusal) To 1 11LR Copies. 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law. Just Affairs, New Delhi. Buildings, Hyderabad.

3. The Secretary, Telangana Advoc€tes Association Librar',. 4 The Principal Secretary, Panchayathral Depa(ment, Tel;r 5 The Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Departme Telangana, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of t 6. The Distrrct Collector, (Panchayats) and Chairman of Se r Hyderabad, State of Telangana. :e and Company High Court rqana Secretariat. t, Government of )langana. ction Committee,

7. The ChGFExeo-rtive Officer, Zllla Praja Parishad, Nalgonda District. 8. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Marriguda Mandal, Nalgonda 9. One CC to SRI CH.GANESH, Advocate [OPUCI 10.Ttrvo CCs to GP FOR SERVICES{I, Higtr Cou( for the State of Telangana, at District. Hyderabad. [OUTI

11.One CC to SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, SC FOR MPPZPq IOPUC] 12.Two CD Copies PSK PMK 1 HIGH COURT DATED:1610712025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.27399 of 2021 I \ ,1A; '' t tt' E SI4 I II]E[ 2025 o C) * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS {