N.Parasu Ramulu v. 1. The State of Telangana

Heard Sri CH.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-fl 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 petitioner aporoached the court seekinq oraver 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 compassionate appointment provided as contingent sweeper to the petitioner in Proc No. E|BT/95 dated 25.07.1995 by paying wages of Rs. 7623/ per month till date even after 26 long years service as regular one in the post of LDC/Junior Assistant from the date of his appointment i.e ., 25.07.1995 in view of extending the Scheme of Compassionate Appointment to the contingent employees who retired on medical invalidation as per GO. Ms. No. 504 GAD, dated 30.07.1980 in respect of Govt Employees should automatically made applicable 5 SN, J by Govt to the contingent employees with the concurrence of 2nd respondent Department in UO Note dated 29.07 .1988 as unjust, unfair, arbiti-ary and violation of Article 14, t6, 21, 39(d), 43 and 300(A) of our Constitution in denying legitimate living wages of the post of LDC/Junior Assistant to the petitioner even after possession B.A Qualification from 1995 onward till date and prays to direct the 1st Respondents herein to treat the services of the petitioner as regular LDC/Iunior Assistant by applying the aforesaid Govt Memos issued from time to time by the 151 and 2nd respondents in the case of petitioner for retiring his father on medical invalidation and principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 36 and 37 in the Judgement in C.A. No, 6798/20L9 and Batch Cases dated 02.09.2019 (2019 (10) SCC 516) in C A No t2S4 of 2018 ro 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 the post of LDC/Junior Assistant along with periodical increments as revised from time to time from the date of appointment of the petitioner to till date with 100 percentage compensation as per principle laid by Apex court in the case of Union of India Vs Avtar chand in C.A. No. 34L6-3445 of 2010 and Batch Cases, dated 19.02.20t9 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by apptying principles laid down by the Hon,ble Apex Court under 6 SN, J Article L4l of our Constitution by this Hon'ble Court and pass..." PERUSED THE RECORD:. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

4. O8.O9.2O1O oassed in W.P.No.24377 of 2007 reoorted in I ,Io( r 7 SN, J reasonable oeriod. 6 No.4 8 SN, J

7. The Apex Court in the judoment reoorted in (2O2O) 1 SCC (L&S) in Prem Sinoh v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, at para 36 held as under: "36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30- 40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Couft in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the Court's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them right from the day they entered the work-charoed establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension."

8. The Apex Court in the case of Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Waqe Emolovees Association Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 199O(2) SCC Paqe 396 laid orinciple that the State should not keeo a oerson in temoorarv or adhoc service for lonq oeriod and have to treat such oersons as reqular one. f' 1 9 SN. ]

9. Para No.53 of the of the iudoment of the Apex court in th State of rnataka a d others Vr . Umadevi. dated 1o.o4.2o06 reoorted in (20o6) 4 s-cc ,1 is extracted hereunder;: "53. O ne asoect n s to be cla There courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that reqular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned oosts that require to be filted uo, in ".""r *he." t"-po.".r, e-olorees o. daily *rge." ,." b.ino, no* Th. p.o"."" .rrt'-b" r.t in motion within six m 10. fne iuaoment of Ule reoorted in 2024 LawSuit(sc) 12o9 in Jaqoo Anita and "-ploy"d. v l0 SN, J paraqraph 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 during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.

13. The claim bv the resoondents that these were not reoular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed bv the apoellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioninq 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 I ;r2 I u SN, J 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 entifled 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 hiohliohts the judiciarv's role in rectifvino 5uch_ misclassifications and ensurinq 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 often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between ,'illegal" appointments. It cateooricallv held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaqed in dulv sanctioned posts and had served continuouslv for more than ten vears should be con dered for ularization 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 "irregular" i \ \ t2 SN, J appropriate. This selective aoolication distorts the judoment's soirit and ourpose, effectively weaponizino it aoainst emolovees who have 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 ieduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to foltow, 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 .L0.2018 are quashed; ii. The aopellants shall be taken back gn duty fofthwith and their services rQqularised forthwith. However, the aooellants shall not be entitled Pecuniarv benefits 'hack waqes for the period they have not worked for but would ts \ l3 SN, J be entitled to continuitv of services for the said oeriod and the same counted for their oost- retiral benefits."

11. The Judqment of the Aoex court dated 31.01.2o25 reoorted in 2o25 rNSC 144 in "SHRTpAL AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD", in particular, the retevant para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder: rliractinnc "15. It is manifest that the Aopellant Workmen continuouslv iendered their services over several vears. sometimes soanninq more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not oroduced in full. the Em over's failure furnish such records- rlacnita srf -a I lnrarc .e rr arlworca inference under well-estabtished labour iurisprudence. rndian labour law stronqrv disfavors oerpetual dailv-waoe or contractual enoaqements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morallv and leqally. workers who futfil onqoing municioal requirements year after vear cannot be dismissed summaritv as dispensable, oarticularly in the absence of a oenuine contractor aqreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. union of rndia in the following parag ra phs: t4 SN, J "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, ds exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental oPerations.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: al." even e of "Tempor rv" Labels: E olovees oMi enoaoed for work that is essential, recurrinq' and inteoral to the functionino of an institution are often labelled as "temporary" or en their rol mrrror "contra reoular emPlovees. Such those of misclassification deprives workers of the diqnitv, securitv. and benefits that, reqular emplovees are entitled to' desoite performino identical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen r ( 15 SN, J 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 prictice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, eipecially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. "

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer,s inability to justify these abrupt terminations. consequenUy, 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 marginaily 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 l6 SN, J commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record. 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 enoaqed in essential. perennial ctuties, these workers cannot be releoatecl to peroetual uncertainty. While concerns of municipal budqet and comotiance with recruitment rules merit consideration- such concerns cto not absolve the Emptover of statutorv obliqations bureaucratic limitations cannot trump'the legitimate riohts of workmen who have served continuouslv in de facto reqular roles for an extended oeriod' 18, The impuqned order of the Hioh court, to the extent thev confine the Aooellant Workmen to future dailv-waoe enqaoement without continuitv or meaninoful back waoes, is herebv set aside with the followino directions: I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, Lg47, is declared illegal. . All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shatl be treated as continuing in service from the l7 SN, J date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appel ant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previousl y performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. for continui t of servicea 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 Respondent Emolover is. directed to initiate a fair and transoarent orocess foi regularizinq the Aooellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement, duli considering the fact that thev have performed perennial municioal duties akin to permanent reou ments Aooel lant Work en or to aoolied imilarlv or are reouired, the Respondent Emotoyer shall exoedite all necessarv administrative orocesses to ensure these lonqtime emotoyees are not indefinitely retained on dailv waqes contrary to 18 SN, J

19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed." L2. The Apex Court in a iudoment ieoorted in (2O17) 1 Suoreme Court Cases 148, in State of Puniab and others vs Jaqjit Sinqh and others at Paras 54 and its sub-oaras (1)(2)(3), of the said judoment observed as under: "54 "The Fult 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 daity-wagers and regular employees were similar. The full bench 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 wageL ad hoc or contractual 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, shatl be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2) But if daily waqers- ad hoc or contractual appointees are not aPpointed against regular sanctioned posts and their services are availed continuously. with notional breilks- by the State Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient long period i.e, for 7O years- such daily wagers' ad hoc or contractual-aPpointees shall be entitled to minimum of the reqular pav scale without any allowances on the assumption that work of perennial nature is available and having worked for such lona period of time- an equitable right -is created in such cateoory of persons. Their claim for r f - r9 SN, J reqularization. i 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 10 years of continuous w,orking, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee"shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months." I

13. The judoment of the Aoex Court reoorted in 201O(9) SCC 247 between: State of Karnataka and others v M.L.Kesari and others. in particular, paras 4 to 9 reads as under:

4. !he_decision in State of Karnataka v, Umadevi was rendered gn_J!-42!06 (reported in 2006 nJhAt saSe,__a Constifqtlen_.Eensh of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appoint'ment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regulaiization 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 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 arrangement of its affairs by the sfafe or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the c:onstitutional and statutory mandates. This court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daity-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 : "53. One aspect needs to be clarified, There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illeoal aopointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa f7967 (7r SCR 72aL R.N. Naniundappa ft972 (t) SCC 4O9l and B,N. Nagarajan f t979 (4) SCC SOT| 20 SN, J and referred to in para 75 above. of duly qualified oersons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularization of the services of such employees may have to . be considered on merits in the light of the orinciples settled bY this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the light of this iudgment. In that context- the Union of India. the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to reoularize as a one-time measure. the services of such irregularlv appointed. who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should futther ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now emoloyed, The process must be set in motion within six months from this date, ..., "5. It is evident from the above that theie is an exception to the general principles against 'regularization' enunciated in lJmadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 Years or more in duty sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the Stafe 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 witt 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 irre:gular. (iiir llmadevi casts a duty uPon the concerned Government or instrumentalitv to take steps to / / 2t SN, J regularize the services of those irregurarry appointed employees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. as a one-time measure. llmadevi directed that such one-time measure must be set in motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 7O.4.2OOG). 6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in lJmadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of att c-asual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts an-d tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess fhe requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services.

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before courts. consequenily, several departrnents and instrumentatities did not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-tinte exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, thb employees who were entitled to be considered in terms of para 53 of the decision in tJmadevi, 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 shourd consider alt daity- wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise wiil be concluded only when all the employees who arE entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of lJmadevi, are so considered. 22 SN, J

8. The obiect behind the said direction in para 53 of llmadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure that those who have out in more than ten years of continuous service without the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered. are considered for regularization in view of their lono service. Second is to . ensure that the departmentslinstrumentalities do not perPetuate the oractice of emolovina Dersons on ilv-waoe/ad- lono oeriods and t, oeriodicallv hoc/casual regularize them on the ground that they have served for more than ten years. thereby defeating the constitutional or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all persons who have worked for more than ten years as on 7O.4.2OOG (the date of decision in llmadevi) without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal in vacant oosts. possessing the requisite oualification. are entitled to be considered for reaularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in lJmadevi or that such exercise was undertaken onlv in reoard to a limited few. will not disentitle such employees. the riaht to be considered fdr reoularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure.

9. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in LJmadevi. 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 lJmadevi, 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/casuat/ad-hoc employees seruing 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 shatl have to be considered in continuation of 23 SN, J the said one time exercise within three months. .[t is needless fo 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. In the iudoment of the Apex Court in Nihal Sinoh and others v. State of Puniab reoorted in (2013) 14 SCC 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 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 accept the defence that there were no sanctioned oosts and e.r irrctifirrlirrn rrtilica 24 SN, J bv the State. It was held that the iudqment in Umadevi r i. I I i: I, i1 i. l, 25 SN. J Nellore Municipal Corporation Rep.bv its Commissioner. paras 7 and 8 reads as under: adopted by the (7) HjgLeourt. fhe right of t flpwslrpm_tbe_ G.O. No. 2 12 dated 22.q. rcg+._Jhe_appelfant fiaye_\een in service of the first respondent not onlv prior to the t G.O. illl_LpdAy- 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. B. 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 circumstancest 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 (B) SCC 4BO.

16. SCC 265, the Supreme Court hetd that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure securitv of J' .r',,:,lrit..,:,,,t :;,.1 t, :'.. .1:t:,:,. 26 SN, J This decision aDDroves earlier view exoressed in M.L.Kesari extracted above.

17. In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasad reported in ( o 2 L4 'l 7 scc ) la ? vt all, rlr.ae CIITI 2 ? Supreme Court and it was held as follows : "47.... In view of the cateoorical findino of fact on the relevant contentious issue that the respondent employees have continued in their service for more than 70 years continuously therefore. the leqal principle laid down by this Court in Umadevi case (State of Karnataka v Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 7 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 73) at para 53 squarelv applies to the present cases. The Division Bench of the Hioh Court has rightly held that the respondent employees are entitled for the relief. the same cannot be intertered with by this Court."

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.276(J2 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 of 2023 dated 1O.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.

19. The judgment of the Aoex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others reported F^- I i i i i ,: :. 'I ri1 lI I I l I i 27 SN, J in ArR 2o2o supreme court 3969 and in oarticular oara "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 power, where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongtv exeriised discretion confe..ed ,oon it by , st"trte, o. a ,ule, ot. a policv decision of the Government or has exeriised such discretion mala fide, or on irrelev:rnt consideration.

101. In all such cases, the High court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority."

20. The Division Bench of this court in its Judoment dated 1o.o6.2o13 passed in w.A.Nos.7g2 of 2o1o and g54 of 2o12 while uoholdinq the Judoment dated og.o9.2o1o passed in w.P.No.24377 of 2oo7 and c.c.No.4g of 2oog o dasu der:- "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 appellant-corporation also issued various office orders/circulars dated zo.tz.1gg9, 11.09. Lggz, 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, gnggging the respondents for such a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but irnfair labour practice attracting the provisions of section 25-T of the ID Act. The learned single Judge while relying on the decisions 28 SN, J 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 consldered view does not warrant interference in these appeals."

21. dated t9.O9.2o17 Dassed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2Ot7 reported in 2O18(2)ALD paoe 282 at oara 16 and para 18 observed as under:- "16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article l4L 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 dgors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time absorption /regularization 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 L994 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 regularization/absorption exist. Therefore. Act 2 of 1994 1OO and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994. do not whittle down the width and the iudgment in Manjula Eashini's case (supra), does not lower the trajectorv of the directions isstied by the Supreme Court in Para 53 of its judoment in Uma Devf's case (supra). It is, therefore. not permissible for the respondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, to deny regularization to Deyf's case (suora). ,V? I 29 SN, J

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.20L7, in oA No.L442 of zol4, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside rispondents to consider regrta.isation of ihe serrices of th. p"tition"rr ,u""*i"r of work "ouinrt rnspectors and appoant them subjeit to ttreir satasfying the criteria laid down in para No.i@ Uqq D"ri'r "rr" (ruq."). Thir p.o".r, -rrt b" ryithi, t*o ,,onth. fro'', th. drt" of@ this order." "o-plut"d "*irting th"

22. The vision ch of is Court in its Jud ment dated 21.04.2o20 passed in r.A.Nos.1 of 2o2o in 1 of 2o19 and w.P.No.23o57 of 2019 reported in 2o2o(4)ALD oaoe 379 at oaras 45, 48 and oara 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) year-s of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date.

44. is not known whv e 1st res oondent h t' thev a workino aqainst vacant regularize their services.

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed the impugned orders dated 20.B.2OL9 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles L4, 16 and 2L of the Constitution of India; 30 SN, J entitled to any monetary relief. The said exercise shail be done within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order."

23. This Court oines that in the ore nt case, the resoondents failed to discharqe their duty in examinino the reouest of the petitioner for reoularization of oetitioner's services, who is workino as full time sweeper and further to consider his request to treat the temporary service of the petitioner in the last orade oost of full time sweeper as reqular one for all purposes by qrantinq last qrade oav with periodical increment revised from time to time from the date of appointment of the petitioner, in accordance to law. 24 This Court ooines that oetitioner is entitled for consideration of oetitioner's case for arant of the relief as nravarl in fha nracanf rit Pefitinn in rriarar rrf fha observations of the Aoex Court in various judqments (referred to and extracted above) and the view of the Division Bench of this court in the Judqments referred to and extracted above.

25. Takinq into consideration:- |! i I 'l i. i i I 31 SN. J a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of 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: i)(202o) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(Sc) L2o9 (v) (2oL7) 1 scc 148 (vi) 2O1O(9) scC 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (201s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2OLL (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.782 of 2O1O and 854 of 2OL2 while uploading the Judgment dated 08.O9.2O1O passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OOt and C.C.No.4g of 2OOg (referred to and extracted above), : i I 32 SN, J e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated

19.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.272t7 of 2OL7 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos. L ol 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 (referred to and extracted above). g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order. The Writ Petition is allowed, the petitioner is directed to out-forth the claim of the .petitioner for reoularization of oetitioner's services, and also the claim of the oetitioner to treat the temoorarv services of the oetitioner in the last grade oost of Sweeper as reqular one for all purposes by orantino last qrade pav with periodical increments revised from time to time from the date of aooointment of the oetitioner and all conseouential benefits duly enclosino all the relevant documents in supoort of petitioner's case as put-forth in the present writ petition. within a period of one (O1) week from the date of receipt of copv of the order and the resoondents j\ JJ SN, J shall examine and consider the same in accordance to law, in conformity with orinciples of natural justice bv providing an oooortunity of oersonal hearinq to the oetitioner. in terms of orders passed bv the Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case reported in 20O6(4r SCC paoe 1, the judoment passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 dated O8.09.2O10 reoorted in 2011 (1) ALD, Paqe 234 and as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 1O.O6.2O13, and also as oer Division Bench Judoment of t is Court dated

19.O9.2fJ1"7 o ssed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2O O7 reoorted in 2O18(2)ALD oaoe 282 and also the Division Bench Judqment of this Court ted 21.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.L ol 2O2O in 1 of 2019 in W.P.No. 3057 of 2O19 reported in 2O2O(4)ALD paoe 379 which had attained finalitv, within a oeriod of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of a coov of this order, dulv takino into consideration the observations and the law Iaid down bv the Aoex Court in the various judoments (referred to and extracted above). and in particular, para No.53 of the iudoment of the Aoex court in the case of state of Karnafaka v. uma Devf and dulv communicate the 34 SN, J order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if ofly, pending in this writ Petition, shall stand closed. //rRUE coPY/ SD/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To, --" oneFairCopytotheHon'b|eMRSJUSTICESUREPALLINANDA llo. Her Ladyships Kind Perusal) 1. The Principal Secretary,,Plnchayat Raj and Rural Employment Department' Secretariat a'rifOi"g,liht Bund HyOer5Oad, State of Telangana'

2. The Prl. secretary (Finance and Planning)' Secretariat, Hyderabad' state of Telangana

3. The District collector and chairman of tt/linimum wages, committee and District SefeJtlon dommitteu, Suryapet District, Telangana State'

4. The chief Executive officer, zillaPraja Parishad, Suryapet District, suryapet' S. The trlandal parishad Development Officer, Tummalapally l/andal of SuryaPet District.

6. 11 LR CoPies 7. The Under secretary, union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and company Affairs, New Delhi. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High Court Buildings, HYderabad. 8

9. One CC to SRI CH.GANESH, Advocate [OPUCI 10.one CC to SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, SC FoR GRAIU PANCHAYAT IoPUCI 1 1 . Two ccs to GP FOR SERVICES-II, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

12.Two CD CoPies BSR cJP \+ i D e ^1 Itf, 2['71 t * HIGH COURT DATED i1610712025 ORDER WP.No.27730 of 2021 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS , r(d"M