Md. Chand Miya v. The State of Telangana

"36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having ."nauiua' tn" services for 30-40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they frare wo*e j- in" tne work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought tJ nuui ULen -anO regularized under the Government instruct,on-s even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. fnis Court-in**tne said decision has taid down thai in case ,"iri.Lr'nuuu been rendered for more than ten v"*, *iih"ri'in" cover of the Court,s order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized of such fa cts of the case, those employe", *[o i"r" *"rt"o for ten years or more shoutd have uu"n-."grrl.ili. lt woul!. n9t be proper to regutate - tnem--ior -oth"i, consideration of regularization a, nur" Uu"n regularized. we direct that their servicei Uu ii"JtJ", a regular one. However. it. is made .f ua. if.,1JG"v shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference i:X:: T..111_,1 :I bee n contin u ed in .".ri."-."f ,iu.ry the age of superannuation. The"y shatl ::,T_1.?:11'n.'ng De enrrued to receive the pension as if they,hive "_proy"Lr. -rn' 7 SN,J W.P.No.26916 of 2021 retired from the reoular esta blishment servrces rendered bv t em rioht from the dav thev entered the work-charqed esta blishment shall be counted as qualifving service for ouroose of oension. "

8. The Aoex Court in the case of Dharwa D istrict PWD Li rate Dailv Waqe Em olovees Associ ation Vs. State of rnataka reoorted in 1990r2) scc aoe 396 Iaid orinci D e that the State sh ould not keeo a Derson in temoorarv or adhoc service for lono oeriod an d have to tr at such Dersons as r oular one. I Pa ra No,53 of the hof t AI uddment of the Anex Court in the State of Karnataka and o hers Vs. Umadevi, dated 1O.O4.2O06 reoorted in (2OO6) 4 SCC 1 is extracted here u nder: - "53. One asDect needs to be clari ed. There ma v (not be ca ses where i rreoular a oDointments illeqal a ODointments) as exolained in S.V. 1. R.N. Naravana ODa scC 4O9'l and B.N. Naniunda DDa r 7 a 1 67 t 9 t1972 (L 4 1) scR L2a rred to n L97 ra 15 above I] sa nctioned vaca nt nos mroht haveb n made have continuedtow rk for and t e emolove ten v ars or more but without the intervent lon of orde s of the cou s or of tribun ls. The ouestion of reoularizatio n of the services of such emolovees mavh aveto he considered on merits s 8 SN,J W.P.No.269I6 of 2021 I di u e thi Co ti h of f s e th ti h of h e b !e s e dto nd ov nm ts s rvl es ho have wor ed n e n ta e e str me ali es h d aon -tim r! a rs or o d rc er of o ls nd ho ld u r a u d c s m ora n w oti n within srx k ntof en ure ha ed. Th n ts ut t t or of r e u ll th sev ca ille u b ees or ro ss on sfr m e h h e e e n u n J s te. udo ent ofth e ADex Co urt da d a a u 10. T e o a 24 re tn 2024 L wSui sc t2 o n oth rsv Union fn ia and an th r VA t ra r 8 re xtr her un h os.12 13 24 2 27 nd "12.. Des_pite being labelled as ,.part_time workersr" the appellants perfo.meJ 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 s-poradic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin t;-th; responsibil ities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscorinS- th; indispensable nature of their work." 9 SN,J w-P.No.26916 of 2021 r

13. The claim bv the resLondents that hese were not re u as the na ure of the work oe ormed bv the aDDell ants was oerennial fundamental to the functionino of the offices, The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)] serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the l0 SN.J lV.P.N0.269 t6 of202l corresponding rig h ts and benefits. It r n u f tc! a t c d e d n e e ed e ssh n

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure a ppointme n ts adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of lon g serving employees. This judgment aimed to d isting u is h between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments t or call h ld th t tm nt n ln ou h d t an t n r e. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted wh en institutions rely on its d icta to indiscrimin ately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments a re not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Gove rn m ent departments often cite the judgment in U ma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regu la rizati on exists for tem po ra ry overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowl edgment of cases where regula rization is appropriate. This s e to ed r n sider d e- m m as e m p loyees, o s u ar a d s s s a r d o VC s tn dis ensablese rvrce 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for qou".n_"ni oepartments to lead by example in providing ec d d d m t I SN'J W.P.N0.269l6 of 2021 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 internationa I labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, 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 follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of la bour 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 27 .1O.2018 are quashed; . T However services lt nts shal! b taken back on dutv forthwith and reqularised forthwith. aooellants shall ot be entitled to anv oecuniarv benefi tslback fhp neriod thaw ha Va waares Jor not worked for but would be entitled to conti nuitv of services for the said ner oda nd the sa me would be counted for their Dost- retiral benefits." t2 SN.J w.P.No.269l6 of 2021

11. The J d 1 1 o 5 AND o H R d NA ar cul I e va t extracted hereunder: x e I c L44 o o2 da ed IP L G GH I BA 5to 19 are o th r en er om ti e s "15. It as ma n ifestt at the Aooella ntwork men conti uo sl r s ver decad e. Eveni fc rta tn muster roll s were not r duce tn s uch f n ad er e f c on to o o- un erw ll- sta t:-ar5 ed an a or s-d n er lc s er's f th E ur aw str n th n e. n r h ual d rn cl m a a e r w er on rac ual th w rk s h n ur untct al e r a dle a or I ensa le wor er re utrem n n otb di mi s a rtacul arl on ac or 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 India in the following pa rag raphs: a s d i sfav rs n m erma en w l3 w.P.No.26er6 0f ;*i - n d "22. The pervasiv€ lmproyment;;;;.i,Tr't'r""rii,r,"T.Tl"liil case, reftefts a broader sys6;;' ;;r", ,,nu, adversely affects w_orkers, ,ish[ lrd j"o security. In the private_sector, tn6 riie .g,g "i t"n" "p".uiuliorc economy has led to an increar" in employment arranoements, often characterized by lack of benefi:ts- ioo' secu.itv,",ln.J=,,iu,, .,llulr:n!:. Such praclrces have been criticized ror exploiting workers un derm in ing labour standards. Govern m er*d *, tt, p n o r oiig' l; :' ;:i" .,}::t' :?,,ij, f:i:r'"T5 lustice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitativr practites. when public ...to. unrl,:Iployment engage in misuse of t"rpoiu.y .Jn-,...u"i,J."''t'us oetti'untlt ;;#".";=6r.: l?t ollv mirrors the '' t""iJil''^1d 1' the' sig economv but also t"tt precedent that can erooe puotrc t.,lr,-in''='ntng governmental operations. 25. It is a disconcertir emptoyees, - -;;;;i:9,. f"urilv that temporarv institutioni, oo["" ''#lt'L 'in sovernment exproitation. il;; ;"'r#;lt:ff;:i., j:#: :i temporary contracts -ay nure oeJ; I;'#;;";, ;1o_T_-,9.T .or seasonat n"uar,-'tn""V";a=v" rncreasingly become a mechanism to z"dz+'stc gnlilg sc 3826 evade tons_t"rr-oi"nnl,i"i. owed to employees. Tht 3Se practices maniFest in several ways: o r" 14 SN,J W.P.No.26916 of 2021 entitled to, desoite oerforminq i entica I 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 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 sig nificant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, eiiectiveiy 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 otfer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances. "

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. l5 SN,J W.P.No.269l6 of 2021 Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record. 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, L947, and that thev were enoa oedin essentia l - wor ers can otber to oerDetua I n erD eleoated rn of muni e n nla td ut es- . whi and comDlia nce with recruitme nt rules merat cons ideration- such concerns do of absolv e the Emol over of statutorv obliqation sor neqate eoui able entitlements. bureau ratic rt h Indeed. n s wor men who have served continuouslv in de re(Iu lar roles forane nded oe iod. h exte t thev to th Hi h nfine th Aooellan t Workm nto enoaqement without dailv-waqe t6 S N,J W.P.No.269l6 of 2021 continu itv or m set asade with th e fol lowinq dir I back wa es. ns: eanrn o Uf o herebv L The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, t941 , 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. rom th ron un it 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 judg ment. Their entire Deriod of bsence r reinsta tement) shal I be count d for continuitv of service and all con uentia I benefits. such a sen ioritv nd eliqibilitv for r 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 aforesa id dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. tion s if C IV. The Resoondent Emolover is di ted to i n itaate a fair and tr nsDarent Dro ess for reqularizin q the Appellant orkmen IN onth from tha d ala retnc+rla tTtent dulv consid eri nq the fact that thev have oerformed oerennial muni ioa! dutie akin a ssessi no Emolover sh ll not reqular rmanent Dosts. In ization, the s t7 SN.J w.P.No.269l6 of 2021 e I r never a DDIi r e to the Aooe llantWo rkmen or w I n r v e h T e an te utr d t u s e dailv w equitable norms. con arv to t d s o n t r ta in d tu rv IV

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 Aoex Cou rt in (20 7l l Suore meCou rt Cases t4a, inS ate of Puniab a nd iud ment reDorted i v a a 54 ndi 1 2 3 f s u en ob rved asu nder: "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, white adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that. temporary emptoyees were not entitted to the lin.i1y* of .the regular pay-scale, merely for the reason, that the activities carried on by daity_wagers and regular employees were similar. The fult bench holwever, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in e:ither of the two exceptionq were hetd entiued to wages at the m.inimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular'employees. The exceptions recorded by the fu Oencn-of tne Ui'gh Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereundei:- "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractuat appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed t8 SN.J w.P.No.269t6 of 2021 after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the reguiar pay scale from the date of engagement. 2 But if d, ntrac a rs. aDDointees are not aooointed aoa nst reoular sanctioned posts and their se rvices are availed continuo rtclv- wtth notio nzl breaks- hw ?he lities for a State Government or its instrumen lono oeriod i.e. for 7O vears, such sufficient dailv waqers. ad hoc or contractual aopointees shall be en titled to minimu m of the reaular DAV scale without anv allowances on the assumDtion that work of oerennial na ture is available and havino worked for such lond oeriod of time, an eout ble rioht is ted in such cateqorv of Dersons. Their claim for requlariza tion. if anv, mav have to be terms of led aIlv conside d seoaratelv in ermissible c (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 working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months."

13. The iudoment of the Aoex Court reDorted in CC 247 betw n: State of ka an others v M.L. Kesari and others. in oarticular . oaras 4 to 9 reads as un der:

4. The decision in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi was rendered on 70.4.2006 (reDorted in 2OO6 (4) SCC 7). In that case, a Constitution 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, reEularization or re- engagement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of 19 SN,J W.P.No.269l6 of 2021 t:t:: jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorptior, njihiArtion, o, permanent continuance unless the recruitient had bteen 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 unaury wiln the" economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumenta lities, nor lend themsetves to Oelisiiu_ents to i n s o f t h e co n st i t u t i o n a r ii i st a t u to ry mandates. This Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily_wage employee does not have a legal right to be made peTmanent uni"ri n" nua been appointed in terms of the relevant iis or in adherence of Artictes 14 and 76 of the Constiiiution. fnis Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : o ea :^ : _gy h. 2r_: ,,5 p a 2s e r n dulv sanctio ed m dea nd n n o te en ls. lce of u. f ers srn nt DOS mloht have been ee olo ued to ave con t a o a e u c, m a b of uc for ten vears or f r d u h t u a e s o o n c, dulv sanctioned oosfs e o e a u m bei, 20 SN,J W.P.No.259l6 of 2021 emDlov,ed. The orocess must be set in motion ,n stx ths from this "5. It is evicient from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled: (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any couft or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or /ts instrumentality should have employed the emptoyee 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 wilt 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. (iii) Umadevi casts a dutv uDon the or instt ncerned s reoularize the services of those irreoularlv aDpointed m lo without who had the benefit or rotection of an interim of cour vi. directed hat such one- t. unals, Uma time measu must be set in motion within six months from the ate of ts d. n rendered

4.200 ne-tim m ,t

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 2l SN,J W.P.No.269l6 of 2021 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 tJmadevi, 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 instru mentalities undertook the one-time exercise exctuding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in cou rts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitted to be considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in lJmadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of lJmadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider alt da ily -wage/ad hoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 70.4'2O06 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 atl the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered. Itl- or tr, rendered. are in Dara 53of a. The obiect behind the said direc t s foe ,rsrrre ihat thatse Umadevt ts fwo- who have Dut in more than ten vears of con nuous seru without the Drotectionofan interim Umadevi was reoularization in view of their lono service. S nd is re that the eDartments/ instrumenta lities do to en oetuate the ractice of emolovino oersons on oe / ad-hoc/casual forlo noD ds and then da ilv- Derrodicallv reo larize the on the qround tha thev have served for more than ten vears, therebv nstitutional or statutorv Drovis tons defea tino the arrno intm ent- Thet nte ,itment and relati d to rec consid' 72 SN.J W.P.No.26916 of 2021 r c o n c n s t an en a a d, I o t o a c, e L o ,s n n d, z h u t b co h ion wi r r n t n t , t I, u th ab ev, asa one-timemeas u re, o uc e z. a s L n 4 7 r u te ua o6 b a c. lar, atl' n, n n o e n on s rci. e b o , o s Uma d, 9. These appeats have been pending for more than four years after the decision in umadevi. rne ipleitant lzita l|!rOrr:t, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of reoulariTzTjon within six moith's of the decision in lJmadei or therealter.

1.O. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of. respondents should be considered in accordance with !aw- The cnLy further iii"rtiJr'"iiut ,"ua, be given, in view of umadevi, is tnitlni-)il' iatncnayat, Gadag shoutd now undertake u, ;*;rri;:; ',iitnin months, a general one- time regutarizaliin il*2rc'ise, to rino out .whether there are any daity *ugeycu5)yla_66s employees serving the Zita bancha'yat "ii'ii"rf," *n"tn., such emptoyees (inctudins th. ;;;;o;;;riri"rut,tt tn" requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill them, their services have to b; ,;grt",;;;;;'I'f sucn un exel:i:e has already been undertakin by ignor,rg o, omitting fhe cases of respondents I to S or the ,-._!rg!r, of.these cases, then tnei, ,iie, J"uiiJr. to t" co.nsidered in continuation of the saiA ini timJ exercise within three months. rt is needtess- ti la)"iiat ir tne respondents do not fulfill the requirements of iira SS of Umadevi, their services need not t" i"iririiJi. rf the emptoyees who have compteted ten yeiis-'Je,iriJe oo not possess the educationat quatification, p*irii.J for the post, at the time of their appointm[nt, lnu"y" _uV O. ?ntidgfd..for regularization in suitabte i[*ir"'portr. rni, appeal is disposed o{ accordrnqly. '- -' rvJt -ieclu'i 23 SN'J w.P.No.269l6 of 2021 L4. I m f A Co rt Ni 4 .st 2 o n scc 65, the Su preme 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 hetd that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appeltants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplanary control vested with the State' It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre as 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 a rbitra ry. her wer an t n d d ific ton ort Sta t rv e m t t n n e d o f f c b n f r s It n SN,J W.P.No.269t6 of202t hoi c e d e a efer ln OU e r h ti n s dth t hea b a h n t a tr r c o 'i r r a n r an e with t e a d n o e la ts n a tu f n er th P li e 186 1 and n o eh o b t n t b s s h th t t e ervi es of th a c rdin re not ta e th tr e e r e t d e t and no a arn h c <t it was heict be mea h d e n the s a d c o t e s r f r Pu b s ch f n r n 5 2 1 o h r T e d co ti N I t eS a n r h over m n f c rB nks ca on rnu n n e e tof h e s 7 7be h on sti u ron o e Co o e n NB tv s lua nd M n o ra to Re b 25 SN'J W.P.No.269l6 ot202l Commissi er. Nel ore District, A dhra Pradesh and ln art lar ar 7a .o. n flow .212 ated We INd it difficult to acceot f e reaso ninq adooted (7) bv the Hioh Court. The rioht o the aoDe nts to eek The aooellan t have been tn service of the first resoo ndent not onlv Dri rtothei ssuance of the said G. O. but eof o. til The respondent is obliged bY the G.O. Municipatity being a statutory body 212(supra). InsPite of the above mentioned G.O. the st 20 years without respondents kept quite for almo lants and continued to regutarising the service of the appel extract work from the aPPellants to th .4.19 In the circumstances, refusinq the benefit of the 8. above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal betatedly, in our opinion, is not jlsufied. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed 'modifying the order under appeal by d-rrecting that the appetianis' services be regularised with effect from the date of'their completing theii five Year continuous service as this Court in District was taid doin by Coltector/Chairperson & 1thers vs. M.L' Singh & Ors' 2009 (8) SCC 480. f Bih I n Rai v St

16. In mar (20Ls) 8 SCC 265. the Suoreme court held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularization of such appointment' which are arregular but not illegal. and to ensure appoantments. which are irregular but not illega!, and n nto tho u rit r h a th r 26 SN,J W.P.No.269 t6 of 2021 s e e st n ew s v M.L K s rt d

17. In ta eof o 4 7 u r m c u 2 n o r v d s or 2 ea rs. e r s edi K v I Pra a a f k rted i s t! w s I 7

18. The Judgment of this Court dated O6.L2.2O22 passed in W.p.No.276O2 ol 2O19 which pertains regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Tempte, yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of thas Court in W.A.No.937 of 2O2Z dated 10.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated OI.OA.ZO24 in SLp No.32847 of 2fJ24. 27 SN'J W.P.No.259l6 of 2021

19. The iudoment of the Aoer Cou rt in Hari Krishna fM har htra in AI 2 20 c a r s.1 o nd a "100. The High Courts under Article 226 of the C have the Power to issue a nature of mandamus, e exercising their ju risd iction onstitution of India, not onlY writ of mandamus or in the but aredu tv-bound to ov nm xe lse nfe red n IO dis retio exer lse d t n t e r u b Go ma a fide, or on trreleva nt con iderati on. h d

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

20. The lst n ch f ha 1n Ju me d I 1 .20 2 .A.N .78 of 10 u u me 9 1 d in W.P N 4 77 t2 07 n c.c .No.48 of 2O 8 obse rved 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.L2.LgBg, 11.09.1992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2OOg for regularization of casual/contract employees' It 28 SN,J 1\'.P.r\-o.269t6 of 202 I is also to be seen that Section 25_T of the ID Act prohibits unrair labour practice bv any emptoy;; ;;;;;k;"i;. As can De seen from the factual scenario,o] ru".""i"r.ln nuno, ensasins rhe respondentl ro1 1rcr, ; ;;; :;;.;tinuous period of time on casual basls is nothing -but unfair labour l:?.,1:"^ ?^t!l1.ri19.thg provisions of section 2s_r ofthe rD ,.Lr. rne rearned sinote )riflgs white ,;ti;;';n-ihe lecisions ol the Apev Court, riohtt d i ",." g, i : :,' Il: oroers, as the learned single :uo!e- .onrid"-."l" u th" aspects or rhe matter in oeiair, i;in" J,:.ip"iiElrpu.t,u", whrch, in our considered.. view a,our. n5t","i"u.runt rnterference in these appeals.,, ;"';' *" i, :: :,: :n : ".1'f""',ff ; :; "-J.; i i. - "Y "

21. TheD ivisi on Bench of thts Co u dated 19.o 9.2 o17 D s e re ortedin ini ts Judq ment nW. P. o 2 72 17 of 2017 2 2 o a a a d ara 2 A D observedas un der: - 18 ( p 2 .'16 It is trite that the I aw declared by the Su preme Court is binding throu ghout th e country under Articl e 141 of the Con stitutio n of Ind ia . It rs noteworth y that by the time the .ludgment in Uma Devi's case supra), was render ed the rovtsions of Act 2 of 1994 and c.O. Ms. No.212 da ted 2.4.7994, were in existence. The Supreme Cou rt, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption o f f persons, who entered se rvice through back doors by grving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts consciousl y ordered for one- time absorption/regularization of those who were working for a period of not less than 10 Years. It has given directio n s in this re gard to all the Sta e Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of va rious state enactments such as Act Z of 1994 and executive orders such as G .O. Ms. No.212 dated 22.4.7994, while giving directions in Para No.S3 of judgment in Uma Devl's case (supra ). But stilt, it has not made any exception in favour of th e States where State enactments bann rng regularizati onlabsorption e x ist. t f r h a e r 2 c 2 9 4 1 4 t G o 2 2 d 29 SN,J W.P.No.269l6 of 2021 n t r r D for the resoonden r ttedlv, satisfi d sl, r f u m to ta shelter under Act 2 n 19 w the riterta laid downinP ara h a vi's r

18. For 27.6.2017, Tribunal is h f U m the aforementioned reasons, order. dated in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the on ls allo ed set aside and th writ oetit n o f e w s t P f w I s h m n e T receipt of a coDY of this order"'

22. The io B nc 2L 4 202 o in its J m t .No .1 o 20 19 n w .23 o 2 19 o d 20 4 a 79 ob erved as under:- 4 f n o "45. There is no dispute that petltioners have been working on a"ity wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) y"uo of seriice by now. They have been given minimum lime-scale from the year 2000' They have been ioniinrorsty working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date. a. followed the d cisro inU aDevi's c se (suora), as h n f .L. o h e u d he n e r t t -.i0 n SN.J W.P.No.269l6 of202I 4 a s d er h t e b u it n a r s Co r tn a fi a services. ing ly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned ed 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respondent he cases of petitioners for regularization of one-time basi s are declared as il legal, a rbitra ry e of Articles 1 4 16 and 21 of the Consti tution of o n u ar d n

50. Accord orders dat. rejecting t services on and violativ India on -ti e ther es ponden a ts I h e wa e n me t.B rel ef n e n n h f m d a e d r c h d

23. This Cou rt oot nes that tn the DTesent case, r s o de nts fail d u s h r e e exami ntn re u ariz ti nof as full tim e sw e r e o e iti eri n h re u st e ti n t' nd t etit o er w t o s a e o I r e a t e e f r d o a re u aro f r all h riod ic n m m th ate o a c rda nc ola t t ti to 3l SN.J W.P.No.269l6 of 2021

24. This u e r f r e r t r n Wri Peti on n m Ju m re rre a x u lnv raou e n e h 2 a) T kin !n o n r The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the Iearned counsel appearang on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counse! appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 c) The observataons 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 (aii) 2025 rNSC 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 -.r l *.a.*o.r.rrU orlli lv)- (2otz) 1 scc 148 (vi)- 2o1o(9 ) SCC 247 (vrt)- (_2013) 14scc 65 i ti", #i,iTS.?"lT,. sc i7 s7 lx.r (2oL4) 7 scc 223 !r:). sr-p wo.szs+ z oi-zozq (xii) ArR 2O2( (xiii) (2006) ot::'i"-" court 3e6e lxrv) 2O11 (, ) ALD, page 234 !1vl.z_o-r a(z)Alo pase 282 (xvi) 2o2o(4)ALD e;sJ; d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O and g54 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment dated O8.O9.2010 passed in W.p.No.2 4377 of ZOOT and C.C.No.4g of 2OOB (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 19.O9.2OtZ passed in W.p. No.272tt ot 2Ol7 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W.p.No.23OSZ of 2Ol9 (referred to and extracted above). 33 SN 'J W.P.N0.26916 of 2021 g) In the tight of discussion and conclusion as arr'ved at as above from para Nos'4 to 24 ol the present order" T Wr directed tOD re u taza no Pe ut-fo ht e cla im of the oetitioner for n f the eti n rt UI o t s r d o r of we r r a h n m ime to aod all conseouent a IN ial ben fits, dulv enclosinq all the r lev do men o n ut- o1 wee t s w h n c ider he m o o r s f e r e n ea in s a n f h e ml e n t iti ner n e u tn ma d 2 o s P e 1 e

3.1 SN,J 11'.P.No.26916 of 2021 u m t s e In P o 9 o1 re ort d n 201 377 f2 a e 1 ALD Pa e2 4 an n ir 6 1 d n tn W N .78 al oa erD vt e c u t e t f t ts c urt d ted 272 7 f2 o7 r o 2 17 a s d e o I 2 2 U I n o th Div st n e ch u t d f2 19 1 o4 .2o20 s e .A.N s P .23 57 f2 1 20 4 D a e 379 wh c a D o o o n o tn ti h a rr do ffo ur t of c n idera on h 4 we k a t f er d n bs rva to sa nd the aw at xC urt n h var o s d m n s x r e a o a t c a a o o n r d eA e u n o kav UmAD nto e t ti o I o n u c ow v r nlcatet e es al e n h a t f e r r t s 35 SN,J w.P.No.269l6 of202t Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- P.C.SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT BAGISTRAR secrffiorrrcEn One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA (For Her Ladyships Kind Perusal) To, '1 . The Principal Secretary, Panchayathraj and Rural Employment Department, Telangana Secrelariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

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

3. The District Collector and Chairman, for Minimum Wages Committee and Drstrict Selection Committee. Khammam District. 4- The Chief Executive Officer , Ztlla Pra ja Parishad, Khammam District. 5, The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Kusmanchi Mandal, Khammam District, TS. 6. 11 LR Copies 7. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Arlinistry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. 8, The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association, Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.

9. One CC to SRI CH.GANESH, Advocate [OPUC] .l0.One CC to SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT [oPUCl

11.Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-II, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI 12- Two CD Copies BSR HIGH COURT DATED: 2010812025 ORDER WP.No.26916 of 2021 ti.a- ( * 1HES 14 1 I Hrn 2f12' t I I +. * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS n ..)KS zvl-1, e