T.Devakamma, Wo Anjaiah, Aged about 57 years v. $ The State of Telangana & Others

2011(1) ALD, Paoe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.7 82 of 201O, dated 1O.O6.2O13 and also order. dated 1 .o9.20L7 oassed in W.P.No.27217 ot2 17 reoorted in 201 A (2) ALD Paqe 282 and also the order, dated 21'04.2O20 oassed in W.P.No.2 O57 ot 2019 reoor ed in 2O2O(4) ALD Paoe 379. s LA,A rned c+2 ri.l i.'t ar arruns r rrrraa ri ntr rtrt he half t resoonden t No.4 submits that the qrievance of the e ras u n Writ Petiti been addressed to the dents herein as on date and l SN. J r ton r no c cti nonth the oetitioner and hence, the retief as ora y e ti e t 3d r1 l orievance of rbv the t be qra nted arn t tht re Dond ents for and the DE itic ner mav be nr( n M nd u can er su h eu der ass ou ht -f e t e e fo hi tw it representa tion to the resD on dents heretn eti ion b r s e id e I en ati e rlev tnce a s put- lfa detailed and UD on s cr dents o lar r, within a u ld n d e a tna co an ea on le eriod.

6.L ar d ouns la alf of t_ re oetitioner d not dispute the sa id submrssa on mad the I a rned unsel ao Dea rinq on behalf of th r sDo ndent No.4 7 The Apex Court in the iudoment reoorte([ in (2O2O) 1 U ar I radesh a nd v a r h s r 6 s "36. There are some of the employees who hav€, .tot been regularized in spite of having rendered tne-re*ii, s for 30- 8 SN. J 40 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. As they have worked in the work-charged establishment. not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructions and even as per the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said decision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years wjthout 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 e reoular establish men and the n lces f rom h rendered trv them rioht from the dav thev ntered work-c s o ual ifv no service for ouroose of De nston. n sh u

8. The ADex Cou rt in the case of Dharwad Distri Literate Dailv Wa oe Emolovees Association Vs. State of PWD Karnata ka reoorted in 199O( that t e State should not k eD a oerson in temDo rarv or adhoc service for lono oeriod and have to treat such ) SCC Paqe 396 laid ori nciole Derso s as reoula r one. Para h of th t u n f Kar her Vs. evt d 9 SN, J 0 6 4 c ls extrac o 4 oo h ereunder: - 1 1 a o s n c dB ra an 5 b '53. One as e e tm n 1 e 67 c40 d ef a a on d vac nt h an un a I 7 f ve o o v b t with out needs tobecla rified. b a r ( n ot illeqal se lai e V. _ Naravanapoa u ,a I1 972( 1) L2 R. 4 scc 507 I ! ulv qualified t; miqht have b nm dea eem lo e lonti n ued to or m r a e en ion of order s of the cou rts oroftr ibun a ls. T e uestionofr quiarizati on oft sofsu h v c ns r ts in the Iicrh of th DTrnca Dless ttled Vt hi Court in the c esa OV ref rred to andi nth e q ht oft his In tha con t t, thEU nio I ,fI t e n s u me nta lities h a ao ne-ti me of su h irre ul / appointed. r ort in dul r t n rrders of the V fu h r e sureth at d h n I ) fill u th s t e to re fi lled o. or( ailv waoe rs o tTll Is be set tn or e b a n a dth n e t tn n we n tx v a t in ca a m ti er /lc n q en t v k e b t s e s r n u w I I I ! t n r r r r b s I f, I .t ( T e fr m t hi d te

10. Th d d o e u o U oro I dia and r h I 4 2 h re nd r: x o t a d _to.r2.2024. 2 9 n a hers, and J Anita and I re relevant n 2 ar ! extract d l0 SN, J "12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers, " the a ppella nts 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 resDondents that these were not requla r Dosts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed bv the aooellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioninq of the offices. The recurrin I nature oF these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their inltial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which eFfectively replaced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.

24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to r SN, J ce of hi the same benefits as regular em ployees. The Court noted that large Corporations have incre ri sing ly adopted the practi ring tenr )ora ry employees or independent contra ctors as a neans of avoiding payment of employee benefits, Il ereby ncreasing their profits. Thi s judgment under ;cores the principle that the nature of the work perfo rm ed, rather than the label assi gned o the worker should determine employment statL s and the corresponding rights and benefi :: It h hri ec ! fvinq t _ that e s workers recei ve fa tr treatment. d s

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi ( sought to curtail the practice of backdoor and ens ure appointments adhered to constit it is regrettable that its princi princi ples, often misi nterpreted or mi sapplied to legitimate claims of lo judgment aimed to d "irreg ula r" r h z id ed n sa time measure. However, the laudable int th e judgment is bei ng subverted when instit rely on its d icta to indiscriminatel y rele( claims of employees, even in cases where appointments are not illegal, but merel ) adherence to procedural formaliti es. Goverr departments orten cite the judgment in Um. (supra) to argue that no vested rig I regularization exists for temporary emplc overlook ing e acknowledgment of cases where regula rizat appropriate. w d on ln lfl an a judgment's t e r n w r upra) a r tries L -ional € i are i This .l egal" r e nts. i; in 1:d in e rved t ould _ cne- :rt of L tions :1 the 'l nent r Devi )1 ees/ x rlicit irn is :! orts j relv ! ave 12 SN, J rendered indispensable services over decades.

27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, 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 labour practices in the country.

28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 .10.20t8 are quashed ; ii. The aooellants shall be taken back on dutv forthwith and their fzr rf lr rrr i f lr tcata a t rl ed GArlrraac However, the aDoellants shall not be entitled Decunaary ck waoes for t e oeriod benefits/ thev have not worked for but would and the same for the said oeriod t n { { l3 SN, J retiral ben efi th lr _ post-

11. Th Ju m t u re orted in 2025IN sc1 44an .SHRIP A a ,l 31.O1. 2o25 AL ANE A NOTHER NAGARN G AZ B Da ra N os.1 5to 19a re extractedhereu nder: m nif the relevant t o '15. t a ed th l, n A w t!- er' ishr: I EE ter oll vears, sometimessDan ninq lla rt Workm en er sev ral s ore th:r r a decade. f( ) luced in full. n fu nish sr h reco rds- d soite directi ons to dos o-allo s dverse n labour Indianl bourla stron lv d isfavo rs -wa rqe m ents in ere ce rurrsorude nce. D rDetual ailv circ UM sta nces where the work ls D :( rman nt n tu w of arI after vear can not be dasmi Den sa b le, n ontractor aqreement. At this juncture, it would be 3 rpropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite .,temporary,. employment practices as done by a recent udgement oF this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in :he following paragraphs: e d sum ma m nt al re eor con tractual en as lis Llr w t a J "22. The pervasive misuse of temporar./ employment contracts, as exemplified in this car;,, reflects a l4 SN. J 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 disconcefting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government instltutions, 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: o Misuse of "Temoora rv" Labels: Emolovees enqaqed for work that is essential recurrr no. and inteqral to the functioninq of a i nstitution are often "contractua ," even when their roles mlrror reoular emolovees. Such those of mlsc assifi c t tn n denrtves work rs of dioniW, securitv, and benefits that reoular re entitled to. desoite oerforminq emolovees 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 labelled as "tem ora rv I l5 ii\. J state of constant insecurity, regardlej; of the quality or duration of their service. . [., ck of Career Progression: Temporary employer: ; often find themselves excluded from opportL r ities ior skill development, promotions, or incremcrr tal pay raises. They remain stagnant in their ro r s, l6ating a systemic disparity between them arrr their regular counterparts, despite their contri ,utions being equally significant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shielc: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively rell acing one set oF exptoited workers with another. ril s p.iciil" not only perpetuates exploitation but als,t Oemonslrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obl r ation to offer regular employment. o Denial of Basic Rights and Benef t ;: Temporary employees are often denied fundant :ntal binefits such as pension, provident fund, hea th insurance, 9nd paid leave, even when their :enure spans decades. This lack of social security rubjects them and their families to undue hardship, eipeciatty in cases of illness, retirement, oT unforeseen circu m sta nces. " The High Court did acknowledge th : Employer,s 16. inability to justify these abrupt terminations. (:onsequenfly, it ordered re-engagement on daily wager: with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettl tly, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant VV )rkmen were Ieft in a marginally improved yet still un( ( rtain status. While the High Court recognized the import rnce of their work and hinted at eventual regularizatiorr, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningfu back wages commensurate with the degree of statul:r ry violation evident on record. b 16 SN, J L7. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev were enoaoed in essential, perennial duties , these workers cannot be releoated to oeroetual .uncertaintv. While con cerns of municipal budoet and comD liance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the EmDIover o statutorv oblioations ments. Indeed r b ureaucratic limitations cannot t r m D thc le TI itimate riqhts of workmen who have served co ntinuouslv in de facto r ular roles for an extend ed oeriod. a ee t n U

18. The imD oned order of the Hiqh Court, to the nfine the Aooellant Work men to future extent thev -w en a e o meaninqful back waoes, is herebv set aside with the followinq directions: c n tnut 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, L947, 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. I 17 SN, J I II. The Respondent Em ployer sha reinstate the Appell ant Workmen in thei r resp€ tive posts (or posts akin to the duties they previc sly performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Thei en tr lr m the date of a r a r te rent) shall be s f sel ,ice and all o cons equen tial benefi ts, su ch as ;enroritv a d eli biti 10 un f r ! t 'l ( L t o t r III. Considering the lengt Workmen shall be entitled from the date of their actual reinstatement. The clea r the aforesaid dues the date of their reinstate h of servicr: to 50% of t discontinua t cn Respondent :m within three m m ent. the Appellant re back wa ges u ntil their ployer shall onths from V. Th t !.'] D r o R n o In a w a er nni e a n s reou lar ati a A e a d asse sln la ri mon hsf st efl n kmr,n wit tn s e en hav e oosts. Emol ver Drocedura I sd trected to erformed l(t ermane nt l cational or t e ili 1v si uated t o T the exte nt e a e s d tie exist or ar re utr d.the esDon ent Er! ployer shall exoed ite lln ece sa rv ad ! e processes re th e n m res are not tndefin itelvr arn ed ondailv waqes contrarv to statu orv and eo ata le or s all no cn rta w lmDO e ev r man istr ti ul r n ivel', s e ts a r s. u r n r.j C

19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) Fited by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s ) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed.,, l8 SN, J

12. The Apex Court in a iudqment reported in (2017) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148, in State of Puniab and others vs Jaqiit Sinqh and others at Paras 54 and its sub-oaras 1 2 3 of the said ud men obs ved "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay- scale, merely for the reason, that the activities .carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The full bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:- "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equatity of opportunity to all other eligibte candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2) But if dailv waqe ad hoc or contractual aooointees are not aDDointed asainst reqular eir services are availed sanctioned oosts and continuouslv, with notional breaks, bv the State Government or its instru entalities for a sufficient lonq oeriod i.e. for 70 vea rs. such dailv waoers. ad hoc or contractual aopointees shall be entitled to minimum of the recrular piry seale wrtbe.tt allowances on the assumDtion that work of oerennial nature is available and havino worked for such lonq oeriod of time, an eouitable risht is created in such catesorv of oersons. Their claim for reqularization. if anv, mav have to be considered seoaratelv in terms of leoallv oermissible scheme. (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 70 years of continuous working, a daily . i l I l9 SN, J wager, ad hoc or contractual employee :;t all be enti ed to arrears for a period of three years and ttv t months.) u m nt e f t :d in2 o10( 9) a Co rt ofK n tak d th rs

13. Th c 24 L e d oth rs tn a icu I r ara 4.to9 u n der: kav Uma ._ /J _wAs_fer ierctl 6 6 20 din2

4. The de CISIOntn Sfate of Karn ata d on 10 CC1 Constitution Bench of this Court hetd that apl without following the due process or th appointment did not confer any right on the courts cannot dtrect their absorption, engagement nor make their service perma ner Cou rt in exercise of jurisdiction under Artt Constitution should not ordinarily issue directior regularization, or permanent continuance unles: had been done In a regular manne r, ln constitutional scheme; and that the cou tts mL ensuring that they do not interfere unduly wl, arrangement of its affa irs by the State or its j, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilita of the constitutional and statutory mandates. Tt held that a temporary, contractual, casual c employee does not have a legal right to be n unless he had been appointed in terms of the ret adherence of Artictes 14 and 16 of the ConstitL however made one exception to the above p same is extracted below nth t )' tintments made 't les relating to zppointees and a'ization or re- t., and the High c'e 226 of the ,: for absorption, : lhe recruitment . terms of the t: t be careful in 1 the economic 1;trumentalities, t t the bypassing 1 s Court fu rther tt a daily-wage 't tde permanent e /ant rules or in I on. This Court c rition and the 3 On s e I u n tJ l ! ! i 'h re I Naravanapoa B [79 1) 4) s 507t ulv aualified ; mioht have ,ontinued to without the of trihunals. rvlces of € a 20 SN, J ave to be co k merits in the lidht of the DrinciDles settled bv this Court in the cases above ferred to and in the lidht of this iudoment. In th t context, the Union of o rnments an stru menta I ities shou ld me measu r, t not un the servI aDDointed, who have wo ed for ten vears or more orders of the courts or of tribunals and should ular recruitments are further ensure that uD, in cases where that reouire to be fil. temoorarv emoloyecs or dailv waqers are beins now emoloved. The oroc ss musf be set in motion within six months from this date. .,.. those vacant san r "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against 'regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 70 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of 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. v Uma It, Government or instrumentalitv, to take steDs to reoularize the se those irreoularlv aooointed emplovees who had serued for more than ten vears without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. as a one-time measure. Umadevi. directed that such one-time measute must be set in s of r 2t SN, J \ of its decision

6. The term 'one-time measure, has to be L nderstood in its proper perspective. This .would norma y mei t-ihat arter the decision in Ltmadevi, each deparliei,ri irr' .irl, instrumentality shoutd undertake a one_rime'"r"rrir.- *a-l).: r;;;; , tist of ail casual, daily-wage or ad hoc.employees wni n, ,eLeen working r:1. .org than ten years withoui tie intiienti, i Zr courts ana trilu.1als and subject them to u proruri v< rifiatton as to whether they are workino against vacant posts )nd possess the requisite quatification roi t'ne post-;;; ii,i, 'ruigut.r,re services.

7. At the end of six months from the dat= Umadevi, cases of several da ity_waqs766 _ hol),., :::"^_:,!!_ pendins before couis. coii.,i oepanments and instrumentalities did not cont, time regularization process. On the othe,t oovernment departments or instrumentaliiiea: one-time exercise exctuding ,eriri'i ''L-,, consideration either on the groind that their ca::c in co.urts or due to sheer oversight. tn sucn iii T1ployees who were entitted to'Oe consialrJ'i, 53 of the decision in tJmadevi, *itt ,ii-to,rJ ti cllsid.ered for regularization, merely b;;;u;. s co m p I e.t e d w i t h o u t ro n, i aii i nZ' "^:::r: :u^ .y 1 .the. six.month period mentionea in pini oLe_c:use nas expired. The one-time exercise shouli co-t wage/ad hoc/those employees who haa pui,r continuous service as on 10.4.20O6 withoL,t protection of any interim orders of ,iurtr'"ir"i) employer had hetd the one_time exerciie in t.;., Umadevi, but did not consider tne ,usii oi riie", were entitled to the benefit of para ss oiuiuiJ,) concerned should consider their cases utio, the. one-time exercise. The one time exercise w,l "1") when-a!l the- emptoyees who are .ntiUuA'io 71ly tn terms of para 53 of umadevi, uru ,o iiiiilZi',1 a d o b -, of decision in sual employees rently, several lence the one- hand, some undertook the oloyees from s were pending Jmstances, the ' terms of para eir rig ht to be the one-time \eir cases, or 53 of Umadevi ;ider all daily- 10 years of availing the bunals. If any ; of para 53 of mployees who the employer :ontinuation of be concluded be considered I o a s r e n n t1 Dara 53 of t those who tous service of courts or madevi was tn v,!ewof I '- t_ n I 22 SN, J heir lon servrce. ^ar.rr6?'rrj6 rtments instru mentalit, s ,1^ n^j Dractice of emolovino Dersons on ailv-waoe / ad- hoc/casual for lonq Deriods and then oeriodicallv reqularize them on the qrou d that thev have served for more than ten vears, thereby defeatino the constitutional or statutorv orovisions relatina to recruitment and of the diiection is that all aooointment. The true e 70.4.2006 (the date of decision in Umadevi) without the Drotection of anv interim order of anv court or tribunal, in vacant posts, possessina the requisite aualification. are entitled to be considered for reoularization. The fact that the emDlover has not undeftaken such exercise of onths of the decision in reoularization within six Umadevi or that such e.xercise was undertaken onlv in limited few, will not disentitle such reqard to a nsidered for reaularization emolovees. the rioht to be rked for more tha f above directions measure.

9. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or thereafter.

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of 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 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exerciie within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for ) ) 23 SN, J regularization in suitabte tt accordingty. )wer posts' This appr al is disposed of

14. n he u men of th e ir r Ni al Sin h : I d th ers e f Pun 'employees, were paid by ro13) 4Scc 65, the Supreme Court considered the cos€ ( rf absorption of Special police Officers appointed by the ,tate, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose (l sposal their services were made available. It held that t 1e mere fact that wages the Bank did no: render the a ppel la nts of those Banks; since the appointment was made by the State an(l disciplinary control vested with the State. ft held that the :reation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authority of the Statr , but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but ch )se to make aPpointments of persons creating relationship, its action is arbitrary. It alscl refused to acceot the defence that there were no sanct oned oosts to u iti e so th re wa SI ustifi for th s at! contractua I n rv ce of a r f o e k e t n e 2 ,ellants for o r.l rt fall from a e n a h s c ;hem bv a 24 n f s choace on the basis r n . Referrin to Umadevi it held SN, J m n before them were not arbitrarilvc hosen, their initial aooointment was not an 'irr oular' aooointment as it had been made in accordance res ribed under P li ith the statutorv orocedure 1861 and t A cannot be heard to sav that thev are not entitled to be absorbed into the services of the State on oermanent basis as, accordino to it, their aDDointments were ou relv temDorarv an not aoainst anv sanctioned oosts created bv the State. It was held that the iudoment in Umadevi n become a licen e the State an its instrume ntalities and neither the Government of Puniab nor those public secto r Banks can continue such a n r ice inconsistent ti ation to fun accordance with the Constitution. f h A ex Court r 1 SCC Online SC 1797 between B.Sri nivasulu and others v Nellore Municioal Corooration Reo.bv its Commissioner, Nellore District. Andhra Prad esh and ot h ers tn Darticu lar oaras 7 and 8 reads as under: 25 (7) SN. J 1Lalppted by_lhe )k reaularization = t: - Lne alpelletl I onlv prior to the 1. to the issue of \:ing a statutory t le of the above ' zlmost 2O years t s and continued flo ws fro m th eG ,o, No.2 1) of thefirst a ted 2 s o .4.1 t t n s s The respondent Mun icipality by the G.O. 212(supra). In G.O. till todav. body is obtiqed mentioned G.O. the respondents k without regularisi ng the seryice of to extract work from the appellants 8. In the circumstances, refusing the bene.it of the above mentioned G.O. on the oround that- the-appel;r')ts approacned the^ be!?tedly, in. our opinion, is not . ustified. In the c_trcum,stancgs, the appeat .is ailowed ioiifylii'S.;le order under appeal by directino that the a-ppefiants, ,"i,iir , ie regutarised with effect from the date of in"i, ,i_pt"'iii, ,i.,, five year continuous service as wa.1.taid d"*;- i;';;;;;,, oun ,n District E"/:it;{.'n"'*erson & orners is. ui.tl'si,'si i"\rs. zoos 61 .Tribunal

16. r e ar a t aiv ta 2 1 B a scc 265, the s UDrem r ore 8 urt held that .1- re objective behind the exception carved out in this case r^ as to permit regularization of such appointment, which : re irregular but not illegat, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensures tv of e tof n w o a s V C d the st Gover nment and the!r Instrum entalitiesform ( ,ret ha vea rs", fn thatca se, em Dlovee was wo rkinq: ,r 29 a DD rov s ear!ier T ts decis ton e)1 rressed in t n v a rs. M K d \ 26 SN, J t7. In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasad reported in (2OL4) 7 SCC 223, similar view was taken bv the Suoreme Court and it was hel das fo lows 7 fn vrew f the cate orical fin no of facl on the d relevant contentious issue that the resoondent emoloyees o ntinued in their continuouslv therefore, the legal orinciole laid down bv t The Division Bench of the aoolies to the oresent case se State of Karna aka v Um 73 at ara 53 4 L , h rt has ri htl interfered with b this Co titled for the relie urt." the same cann tbe

18. The Judgment of this Court dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.27602 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 2023 dated 1O.1O.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLP No.32847 ot 2024.

19. The iudqment of the Aoex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 and in oarticular para Nos.lOO and 101 held as follows: / 27 SN, J LI ()1 igh Cou rts exercisin g their j fthe constitution of India, n ue a writ of mandamus or but are dutv-boun dto "100. The H Article 226 o power to iss mandamus, p er-wh ere heGover nme nt ora plJ ha s fai led toe xerct se or has wron( ferred oo t va statut ( a poli cv decis ton oft heGovernment or s ch di cr tio f consideratio n. ro co t or0 I rct e isdiction u nder only have the the nature of rlic authoritv rlv exercised , or a rule, or ras exercised all such cases, the High Court musi. issue a writ of _1O1.,In mandamus and give directionis to .orp"i p e?ormance in an appropriate and lawful manner he discretion conferred upon the Government or a public I Jthority.,, 'of

20. T e Divi onB ch of hi da ted 10.o6.2o13 passed tn W.A.Nos.78 2of c ln l:s Judqm nt 01O an d 854 2 12 wh le h tdi e t te c o8.O9 .2o10 d nW .P.N se e as n o,24377 f2 07 an r:- .N E.48 of 2OO8 "Further, it is manifest from the material on r )cord that the :^iyl."t ot the simitarly placed persons *no upp - ,acnea the law Lourts were regularized. The appellant_Co.po?I - r=n also issued various office orders/circurars aateJ io.illibii',' tt.os.tgs2, 06.to.2001 and tatest Aeing +.iioo; f*;;Ltarization of casual/contract employees, Itls also to be seen iiJt section zS_ T of the ID Act prohibits unfair.tabour p;;.il; b;"any emptoye. or workman. As can be seen from th; ;;t*i I :lnario of the :?r:.r on hand, engaging the respondents foisL:n a tong ana continuous period of time on casual basis is notling but unfair labour pracrice attractino tne proviiions- ;i-il;: n ,r_, or ,n" ID Act. The learned Sing-le Judge wtrite re-tyil!"o) decisions of the Apex court, rightiy nera lrrat itre .*li,;"d".:i are entired to regularization as directed il lhe irpr-s""i-. -'ders, as the 9l.l:0. singte Judge considered "[ th" "-r;;t. oi tiu rn"rr.. in detail, in the proper perspective, wnicn, iri oui i: rsioered view does not warrant interference in these uppuui.-..,-" 'tne " € 28 SN, J

21. The Division Bench of this Court in its -ludoment dated 19.09.20 L7 oassed in W.P.No.27217 of 20L7 reported in 2O 18(2)ALD oaoe 282 at Dara 6 and oara 18 observed as under:- "16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in lJma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of L994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time 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 22.4.1994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning reg u la rization/a bsorption exist. .2 2 date ) 2.4.L994 .l iudoment in Maniura Eashini's case (supra), does not lower the t Suoreme Court in Para 53 of its iudgment in Uma Devi's rr^+ r^rhi}}la d^rern i h width a 6.1 tectotvo t the directions issued 2 f 1994 1 b ra .It ke shel er rmt sible f f 1994 nd 6af Ms. No.212, d ated 22.4.1994, to denv reoularization to criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the iudoment in Uma Devi's case (suora). satisfi6d f nerc ad:niffad

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2017, in OA No.1442 of 2OL4, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside i6n to t he and the writ oeti w rvtces of resoonden ts to consider reo larisation of the the petitioners aoainst the existino vacancies of work ion is allo ed wt h the di t I n n 's s t n his ord er. " 22. T e Divi sro 29 w r s h SN. J u N a to :h err sati of t:l re IU om ent tn tbecom eted I ,t of a coov of B n f c ur Ju a ed 1 4.2 2 a s din I.A.N s 20:l I i I of 2019 ! (4)ALD oaqe 7 a 5 4 n a o s v a _ rnder:- "45. There is no disoute that petitioners have t een working on daily wage since t990 and have prt in Jro= i-J:O; y"urc of service by now. Thev have been gluun rnin;;ri ,i,|,u-..ulu r.o, the year 2000. Thev have beeri continuousfy , )orkrng without any Court orders in ti-reir favour from 1990 till d I e. 8 o n e w s T Mn acsras s ( )rD e i o c a n a t has not (suo ra ). as undertaken a f dail v wa qe n :n (1O) years ib unal as on d ification as to t posts and ts. and if so, I ! ! 5 a o s v e m e e 1 h 4 t o r DOsse ss e d e a r r ouisite ou tifi s. s e !n o e h t r

50. Accordingly, the writ petition orders dated_ 20.B.20t9 passed by the cases of petitioners for reguia time basis are declared as illegal Articles t4, t6 and 21 of thE r e initial datesofth err e o itledto anv moneta n coov of the order.,, \ is alloweC; the 1st respor rization of sr-. , arbitrary ar Constitution t f ! t ( x€:t the impugned dent rejecting vtces on one_ d violative of rf India; the e-time basis e DE iti ners es from the shall not be cise shalt be rf receiot of DOO n c n a ent. Bu relief. The said 30 SN, J 23, This Court ooines that in the oresent case, the resoondents failed to disch rqe their dutv in examininq the reouest of the Detiti oner for requtarization of etitione h workin as full and further to consider his uest to treat the temoorarv service of the oetitioner in the last orade oost of full time sweeDer as reoular one for all ourooses bv orantino last qrade oav with oeriodical increment revise d from time to time from the date of aoooi ntment of the oetitioner, in accordance to law.

24. This Court oines that oetitioner is . entitled for r tion of etatio r s f f n f h r lief a ra ed for observatio ns of the Aoex Court in various iudqments h n rit Peti f I l.alorraA to nde vll-zallaA t and iha h Division Bench of this Court i n the Judoments refer red to and extracted above.

25. Ta ino into consideratron:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. ( 3l S\ I b) The submissions made by the le: rned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and ler rned standing counsel appearing on behaif of the respondr: tt Nos.4 & 5 c) The observations of the Apex Court i r the various judgments (referred to and extracted abor e) and again enlisted betow: i)(2O2O) 1 SCC (L&S) (ii)- 19eo(2) scc pag; 396 (iai) 2O2s rNsc 144 (ir) 2024 Lawsuit(sc) 12O9 (v) (2oL7) 1 scc 148 (vi) 201o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Ontine SC t7g7 (ix) (2015) 8 scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc 22s (rl) SLp No.32847 of 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme iourt 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 sCC 1 (xiv)_2O11 (1) ALD, page 234 (-xv) 2O18(2)aLo page i82 (xvi) 202o(a)ALD pJge 379 d) The Division Bench order of this 10.o6.2013 ( ourt dated passed in W.A.Nos.7g2 of 2O10 and gS4 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment dated 08.09.2010 passed in W.p.No.2437l ot 2OO7 and C.C.No 48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), 32 SN, J e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated t9.O9.2017 passed in W.P.No.272L7 of 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 2O19 and W.P.No.23O57 of zOLg (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 allowe the Detitioner is directed to out-forth the claim of the oetitioner for d reo u la rization of oetitioner's services. and also the claim f etitioner e m ora servrc er in the la il ur os s T] ee er sre rade a with +1r a f r rncrements revised from ti ent of h e to time from the date of and all cons n nefits dul n ll the n m n ron r' t-forth in h writ oetitlon- within a oeriod of one (O1) week from the date of receio t of coDv of the order and the resDondents t J' h a a IN a d o I e a e nf r wt h e t n e ti t r s t rd rs a SN, J ccorda nce to at .! al iustice bv he, rrt nq to the _:he Suoreme c h n m D vi's re o oo 4 scc Paoe 1, a e P o 4 77 ot' 20 07 dated o o 2 Ore or ed in 20 1 1 AL a 34 an a c fa rmed ln W.A .No .742 of2o 10 dated 10, ! 6 .20 13, and this; Courtd at d also as er Divtsion Be nch Jud mentof 19.O 9.20t7 oass din W.P No.272 L7 ol 20Olr o 8 o din Dir t sion Bench 2 2a dal A D o h this Cou rt dated 21.O4-202t) oassed in Jud q ment of I.A. Nos .1 ot 20 20 in1 of 020 A D a w thi a o h ofa c of th r x o e b rV ta ev r u extr cted bove). and tn a a v, t. n U 20 19 in W.P.N o.2 e37 t57 of 2OL9 h hrd a ain ed ur o e sf rm the date f d :akin e w g id down bv e ts refr: 'red toa nd t e c f Stafe of nicate the o e IJ a tcu lar, Dara N ( .53 I )+ Sr.!, J to h r.H we r h order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. Sd/.S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTTCE SUREPALLI NANDA (For Her LadYshiPs Kind Perusal) To

1. 2 J.

7. 8.

9. 10 11 11 LR Copies. 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. ine piinZipit b"-retary, Panchayathrai Department, Telhngana Secretariat, Hvderabad, State of Telangana. ffie Fiincipat Secretary, Fi-nance and Planning D-epartnlgltr Govt of retinoand. Telanoana Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana' The Djstrict Collec-tor (Panchayat), and Chairman of Minimum Wages Committee and Diskiit Selectibn Committee, Nalgonda Diskict. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Nalgonda District' fne frrf and District One CC to SRI CH GANESH, Advocate [OPUCI iwo CC. to GP FOR SERVICES-Il, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] ohe-cd ro sht PF{ADEEP REDDY KATTA, sc FoR MPPZPP [oPUC] Two CD Copies jnOal Development Officer, Mdndal Praja Parishad, Nalgonda lvlandal PSK. PMK HIGH COURT DATED:1410712025 ORDER WP.No.31161 of 2022 CC TODAY 1 rli )rA(t o iO 2 * F_t ?t?5 r;) * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS r