The High Court · 2025

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma / be pleased to direct the respondents herein to pay the salary of full time sweep3 par with their counterparts full time sweeper working in the Karimnagar and other districts as per Proceedings dated.07.10.2015 and Proc.No.A3l17312O19, dt.25.1O.2Oi' scale from time to time as granted in the similarly situated cz to the petitioners on );tnchayat Schools in No. 12771A812O15, in last grade time se in l.A.No.l of 2018 in W.P.No.8418 of 2018, dated.15.03.20'18 on implementir( the same by the 1't respondent in G.O. Ms. No. 1 55, dated.22.O3.2021 by treatinll not as dissimilar as per the principal laid by the Hon'trl he petitioners similar : Supreme Court in C.A.No.6260-6261 of 2021 , d1.26.10.2021,( 2021 (6)ALD 285(SC)) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case- Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI CH.GANESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 TO 4: GP FOR SERVICES-I Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI R.CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY, SC FOR MPP ZPP The Court made the following: ORDER J SN,J wP I1916 2022 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI I ANDA WRIT PETITION No.31976 OF 21r r-z ORDER Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistall : Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on ll:half of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri R.Chandra ! hekar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on rehalf of the respondent No.5.

2. The oetitionersa D oroached this Cou r: seekinq the praver as under: "...to issue an order or direction more l) the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare t Respondents in not treating the services of pett one in last grade post from their date r:' petitioners by denying to pay legitimate living .^ working as full time sweeper for all purpcs regularly engaged last grade employees department as per High power committ€( respondent d1.1,7 .O7 .7994 in violation of Articl: (d), 43 & 300 (A) of our Constitution by r Section 13 and 15 of Minimum Wages Act, 194 of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 and prays to c records releasing service conditions, seniorit,/ posts of last grade posts in ZpplMpp sch implementation of High Power Committe€l rrticularly one in re action of the oneTs as regular appointment of ages for actually rs on par with in respondent report of 1't ; 74, 16,21, 39 )l implementing J and provisions r I for the official and sanctioned rols along with respondent of 4 wP -319t6 SN,J 2022 Government dated 17.07.1994 to direct the Respondents herein to treat the services of the petitioners as regular one in last grade post from the date of initial appointment of petitioners by applying the decision and principle laid by the Hon,ble Apex Court in the case of prem Singh Vs State of U.p. (2019 (1) SC 516) and Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.p.No.33936 of 2011 and Batch Cases dare 02.05.2018 (2020 (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) followed by decision of the Hon,bte High Court of A. p. in W.A.No.483 of 2O2l dated 05_08.2021 based on principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.1254 of 2018 Apex Court, dated 23.03.2018 to reckon contingent services of petitioners for computation of qualifying service to grant of pension, gratuity and other retirement on his retirement by releasing all consequential monetary benefits in the last grade on par with regularry engaqed Iast grade emproyees of the respondent departments along with periodical increments, as revised from time to time with 1000/o compensation as per principle laid by Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Avtar Chand in C.A.No.3416 - 3445 of 2010 & Batch Cases dated Ig.OZ.2Otg (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by apptying the aforesaid principles and decision of the Hon'bre Apex court & Division benches under Article 141 of our Constitution of this Hon,ble Court in the case of petitioners and pass...,,

3.L d cou nsel e on r a oDea ra nqon lf of relia ce nth aver en m et id vit f led in s t t rtai n n e a rti ular t to the en s eti on tw it ervt sr nd edb er inf rm 5 SN,J wP r l9 16 2022 decade contends that the oetitioners are e r titled for the relief as praved for in the oresent writ oetiti ( n. PERUSED THE RECORD:- DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-

4. Learned counsel apDearinq on b:half of the Det itioners submits that the subiect issue i1 the Dre sent case is squarelv covered bv the order of thi: r Court, dated

08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OC 7 reported in 2011(1) ALD, Paqe 234 as confirmed in !I.A.No.782 of 2O1O, dated 10.06.2013 and also order, dal:r,d 19.O9.2O17 passed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2017 reported in 2018 (2) ALD Paq e 282 and also the order, dated 21.04.11 )20 passed in w N 2 7 t2 1 I LD Paqe 379.

5. Learned standinq counsel aDDearinq ol1 behalf of the respondent No.5 submits that the qrie r ance of the petitioners as put-forth in the Dresent Wri Petition had not been addressed to the resoondents helr rin a on date and therefore. the Detitioners cannot comDla in ina the Dart of res Dondents herein in cor rsiderinq the qrievance of the petitioners and hence, the relief as praved for by the petitiqner in the preserl: Wit petition n 6 SN,J wP i 19 16 2022 ca n not be ora ed an d noMandamus ca n be issu ed aqai nst the resDondents hereunder as souq ht for and the petitione rs mav be directed to out-forth the oetitione rs' q rieva nce as Dut-forth in the oresent Writ Petition bvwa ofa detailed re oresentation to the resoondents herein receipt of the said reore sentation, the resoonde nts would consider the same in accorda nce to uDon law, within a re sonable period.

6. Learned coun sel aooearinqonb ehalf of the Detitioners does not disoute the sai submission made bv the Iearned dinq counsel a t, ea rr nq on behalf of th resDondent No.5

7. The A Dex Cou rt in he iud ment reoorted in (2O2O'l 1 (L&S) in Prem Sinoh v State of Uttar P ra desh and others. at Dara35he ld as un der: -been "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 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 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, 7 SN,J wP 3 t9 t6 2022 those employees who have worked for ten yeri TS Or more should have been regularized. It would not lr proper to r as othe rs regulate them for consideration of regularizati. have been regularized, we direct that their ;ervices be clea r that treated as a regular one. However, it is maclr they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues c I d iffe rence : reg u la rly in wages had they been continued in serv c before attaining the age of superannuation. Ti 3y shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they he 're retired Irom the reoular establishment and th, r services thr v entered r n the work-charqed establishment shall be I -olulted__as oualifvinq service for ouroose of pension.'' r

8. The Aoex Court i the case of Dharwarl District PWD Literate Dailv Waoe Emolovees Associatio n Vs. State of Karnataka reDorte d in 199O(2) SCC Paoe 39 ( Iaid principle that the State should nof keeD a Derson irr temporarv or adhoc service for lonq Deriod and have I o treat such ersons as re r

9. Para No.53 of the of the iudqment of l:l re A x Court in the State of Karnataka and others Vs. Ur radevi, dated 1O.04.20O6 reported in (2006) 4 SCC l is extracted h ereu n der: - "53. One asoect needs to be clarified. l-here mav be cases where irreoular aD ointments (not illeqal ADDointments) as exDla ined in S.V. Naravana DA .N. Nan unda ,ra 11972 (1) L967 scc 4091 and B.N. Naqaraian 1L979 4) scc s 071 and referred to in para 15 above, of _ lulv oualified Dersons in dulv sanctioned vacant pos; s mrqht have been made and t i _c!I!$_UCd_le mDlovees hav€ 1 8 SN.J wP 31916 2022 ten vears or more but without the work for i ntervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of req u Ia rizati on of the services of such emolovees mav have to be considered on merits in the liqht of the orincioles settled bv this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the liqht of this iudoment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalitaes should take steDs to reqularize as a one-time ointed ears or more in dul sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that reqular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that requare to be filled uo, in cases where temDorarv emolovees or dailv waqers are beinq now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. .... vices of such irre ularl e worked for ten o a

10. The iudqment of the Apex Court dated 2O.12.2024, reported an 2()24 LawSuit(SC) 1209 in faooo Anita and others v. Union of India and others and the relevant paraqraDh Nos.12, L3, 24, 26, 27 and 28 are extracted hereu nd er: "12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants performed these essentaal 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. o SN,J wP i 1916 2022 !. t i :s that :rit, as ry the ntal to r:urring of how is a lso f these lr the rherent u rcin g, rs with ork in ral. The claim bv the res 13. se were nof re ular oosts lacks n the nature of the work oerfor med ADDellants was Derenn ial and fundam the fu n ction in o of the offices. The nature of these duties necessitates classification as regular posts, irrespectivr: their initial engagements were labelled. lt noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing ( same tasks to private agencies aft appellants' termination demonstrates the i need for these services. This act of out:;r which effectively replaced one set of worl.:r another further underscores that the v question was neither temporary nor occasic 24. The landmark judgment of the Unite in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporrrl F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a I) example from the private sector, illustrat consequences of misclassifying emplo,z circumvent providing benefits. In this Microsoft classified ceftain workers as inde I contractors, thereby denying them er beneFits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for th Circuit determined that these workers w fact, common-law employees and were er t the same benefits as regular employees. Th noted that large Corporations have incre adopted the practice of hiring te1 employees or independent contractors as il of avoiding payment of employee benefits, I increasing their profits. This judgment und l the principle that the nature of th: performed, rather than the label assigneci worker, should determine employment st. t the corresponding rights and beneli hio liohts the iu d icia rv's role i such misclassifi catio n s and ensufln workers recetve fair treatment. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor :ntries and ensure appointments adhered to const t ltional I State on [97 rrtlnent ng the :es to case, €:ndent ployee r Ninth lre, in tled to : Cou rt asing ly pora ry rnea ns l ere by ':;cores t.o the rs and s. It :ifvi n q _ that ! 10 SN,J wP 31916 2022 "irregular" 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 cateo oric llv held that emoloveestn lrre ular aDDointments , who were enoao ed in sa nctioned Dosts a nd had d ul served co ntinuou slv for more than ten vears should be considered f r reoularization as a one- time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to ind iscrim inately 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 appropriate. This elective aoolication d istorts the i dqment's s irit and ou roose, effectivelv weaDonizino it aqainst emDlovees who have rend ered deca des. indi soensable servlces

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 1l SN,J wP 3t9t6 2022 follow, thereby contributing to the r verall betterment of labour practices in the c,c rntry. 28. In view oF the above discuss r n and findings, the appeals are allowed. The inr ugned orders passed by the High Court and the T -ibunal are set aside and the original application is i llowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 .70.2018 are quashed; The appellants shall br: taken ii. on dutv forthwith an(I their re ularised fort rwith. servrces the aooellants shall l rot be Howeve f e ntitledto ; rniarv De' benefits back waoes for the _ reriod t the have n w rk be entitled to continuitv of sc rvtces for the said Deriod and the same would be counted for their_ Dost- retiral benefits."

11. The Judqment of the Aoex Court dat,3 131. L,2 25 reported in 2025 INS C L44 in *SHRIPAL ANI I ANOTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD", iN pa rticu la r; _the relevant para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder: "15. It is manifest that the ADoell nt Workmen contin uo uslv rendered their services vears, sometimes spanninq more thri rn a decade. Even if certa in muster rolls were not or rdu ced in full, theEm Dlover's failure to furnish s r ch recor s- despite directions to do so-allow: an adver inference under well-establish :d labour er sever t ,-.< t2 SN,.I wP 3 t9l6 2022 lurtsDr udence. Indian labo ur law stronolv di avors perpetual dailv-wa e or contractual enqaq ements in ctrcu mstance s where the work ls oerma nent in n atu re. Morallv and leqallv- workers who fu lfil onqotn q municipal requirem ents vear after Yea r cannot be d ismissed summarilv as disoe n sa ble, DA rticularlv in the absenceofaoe uine contr actor At this juncture, it would be appropriate to aqreem e recall the broader critique of indefinite ..temporary,, employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of fndia in the following paragraphs: t. "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as 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 fa ir 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 empioyment 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 t) SN,J wP 3 1916 2022 T f'T reo u ar e olc,r ees. t rl ora EmD lovees recu r tn n ctio n inq ol n institu owed to employees. These practic€ s manifest in several ways: . Misu ora " Lab enq aqed for workt hat is essenl and inteqral to thef n r "contra ctuaL" even when their roles m I rror Such mis la ssification de Drlves wol'l .ers of the diqnitv. secufltv, and benefits that reoular ed to, d esD ep erfo rm inq emplovees are entitl id n ical ta k . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary frequently dismissed without cause or in the present case. This practice i principles of natural justice and subje:' state of constant insecurity, regardle : or duration of their service' o i- Progression: TemPorarY emPloY€( themselves excluded from oPPortu development, promotions, or increm( They remain stagnant in their r<r systemic disparity between them ar counterparts, desPite their cont I equally sig nificant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shir: o: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing ro1, s performed by temporary employees, effectively r: llacing one set of exploited workers with another. l lis practice not only perpetuates exploitation but a: a demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the ob igation to offer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Ben€'its: Temporary employees are often denied fund a nental benefits such as pension, provident fund, h:alth insurance, and paid leave, even when thei tenure spans decades. This lack of social securi -' subjects them and their families to undue hards r p, especially in cases of illness, retirement, crr unforeseen circumstances." employees are notice, as seen ndermines the ts workers to a s of the quality lck of Ca reer s often find r ities for skill rtal pay ra ises. :s, creating a d their regular butions being T4 SN,J wP 31916 2022

15. 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. Regrettably, this only perperuated 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 eventuai regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages degree of statutory violation commensurate with the evident on record. 17. 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 enqa ed in essential, oeren nial duties , these workers cannot be releoated to Der oetua I uncertaintv. W hile concerns of municioal compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Emolover of stat torv oblio tions nts. ne at bu rea ucratic lim ot trum Dt he leaitimat e rio hts of workme n who have served continu ouslv in de fact e uitabl r an extend ed Deriod. reqular roles budqet In

18. The imouoned order of the Hiqh Court. to the extent thevc(l nfi ne theA Dneil ant Workm en to futU re t5 SN,J wP 31916 2022 rntin uitv or dailv-waoe enoa ement without m eanrn ful back wao es is herebv set a side with the followinq d irections: o c nt Workmen's vith Section 6E Disputes Act, orders or services are la nt Workmen rrice from the rses, including I. The discontinuation of the Appell, services, effected without compliance and Section 6N of the U.P. Industri : 1947, is declared illegal. A I communications terminating their quashed. In consequence, the App,: shall be treated as continuing in s,: date of their termination, for all pur: seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer sha I reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respe: ive posts (or posts akin to the duties they previo.r;ly performed) within four weeks from the date of :his judgment. Their entire oeriod of absence (frr TI e date of term ination u nti I actual reinstate n rent) shall be cou nted for continuit ice a nd all conseouential benefits, such as;eniori eliqibilitv for oromoti ons, if anv, of selr l III. Considering the Iength oF servicr: Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o of t from the date of their discontinuat actual reinsta tement. The Responden: clear the aforesaid dues within threr the date of their reinstatement. the Appellant re back wages on u ntil their Employer shall months From IV. The Respondent EmploYer i rected o initiate a fair and tra nspa renl. Drocess for reo u la rizi nq the Aooella t Worknr ith in six months from the date of reinst ement that the perennial municipal duties akin o Der manent oosts. In assessinq reqular zation, the u catio al or h il m lo er procedural cri t, ied to the req u i rements to simil rrlv situa ted Aooellant tm ose retroactivr: v 're Derfor I Workmen or rI r h a l6 SN,J wP 3 t9 t6 2022 reoular emDlovees in he oast. To the extent tha sa n ctio ned vac a ncies for such duties exist or are reouired, the ResDondent Emplover shall exDedite all necessarv adminis trative D rocesses hese I n time m lo e indefini telv retain ed on dailvwa es co ntrarv to are n en su de ul ble norm 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 iudsment reDo rted in (2O L7) 1 Su oreme Court Cases 148, in State of Pun iab and others vs laoiit Sino h and others at Paras 54 an its sub- a ras ( 1 )( 2)(3). of the said i ud ment observed as u nder: "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, white adjudicating upon the above controversy had conctuded, that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regutar 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 t$to exceptions, were held entitted to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale dravin 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 equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. B dail wa ers, adh 2 aDDointees are not aDDointed aoainst reqular sanctioned oosts and their services are availed j e Sfat h fficien rnment o with no aI hraaLc I r I7 SN,J wP i19t6 2022 lonq period i.e. for 70 vears, such d ilv waaer.'s, ad hoc or contractual aDDointees shall be entitled to m of the re u r ithout an allowances on tbe assumption 1at work of ! perennial nature is available and harl worked for such lono oeriod of time, an eout lable risht is created in such cateoory of persons._'heir claim for reoularization. if anv, mav have to be considered separatelv in terms of leqallv oermis:i ble scheme. E (3) In the event, a claim is made for mir after more than three years and t completion of 10 years of continuous v wager, ad hoc or contractual employee sn arrears for a period of three years and tw( 'rnum pay scale vo months of orking, a daily r tll be entitled to tttonths."

13. The iudqment of the Apex Court reoort! di SCC 247 between: State of Karnataka a rd others v 010 9 M.L.Kesari and others, in oarticu ar, Daras 4 :o 9 reads as u nder:

4. The decision in State of Karnata ka v. Umad = in 2006 (4) SCC 1) on 70.4.2006 ( reoo CpnSuIulpn Ecngh of this Court held that ap1t, without following the due process or the !1 appointment did not confer any right on the courts cannot direct their absorption, regute engagement nor make their service permanetl Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Art,( Constitution should not ordinarily issue direction. regularization, or permanent continuance unles.; had been done in a regular manner, tn constitutional scheme; and that the courts m) ensuring that they do not interfere unduly v,t,t arrangement of its affairs by the State or its.r nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilita, of the constitutional and statutory mandates. l'l held that a temporaryr contractual, casual c employee does not have a legal right to be;l unless he had been appointed in terms of the rel adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the ConstitL however made one exception to the above :) same is extracted below : ,i was rendered '!1 hat case, a intments made les relating to )ppointees and ',tzation or re- , and the High 'e 226 of the for absorption, the recruitment 'lerms of the ;r be careful in t the economic stru menta lities, e the bypassing i:; Court fu rther - a daily-wage ade permanent ,vant rules or in :ton. This Court )sition and the I8 SN,J wP 3t916 2022 I L 972 967 28 R,N. where i, "53. One asDect needs to be clarified. There mav be a ADDO intments) as exolained in S.V. Narava NADDA 7 SCC 4O9l and B.N. Naqaraian I 7979 (4) scc soTl and referred to tn para 75 above, of dulv qualified persons in dulv sanctioned vacant posts miqht have ade and the emolovees have contin ued to work for ten rs or more but witho t the interven onof orders of the courts or of tribunals. Th e d uestion of reou la rization of the se such emplovees mav have to be considered on the lioht of t'he orincioles se ttled bv this merits Court in the cases boverefer to and in the liqht of this udoment. In th t context. the Union of India. instru menta I ities shou Id take steDs to reqularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irreqularlv ADD ointed. who have worked for ten vears or more in dulv sanctioned posts but not under cover of ord,ers of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that reqular recruitments are underta n to fill those vacant sanctioned Dosts auire to filled uo tn cases where temDorarv emolovees or dailv wacrers afe beinq now em loved. The oro ss must be set in motion within six mon ths from this date. .... the State Governments "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 shc,Llci have worked for 10 years or more in duly sancticned 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 votuntarily 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. l9 SN,J wP 3l9t6 2022 n strumen (iii) Umadevi casts a dutv uDon tl e concerned , (e sfeps to requla rize the services of those irresul a -lv appointed emoloyees who had served for more t.\ 1n ten vears without the benefit or protection of a!1v int trim orders of coutts or tribunals as a one-tirte :ea:; tre, Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure mlst be set in m otion within six months from the date r.f its decision ( rendered o n 7O.4, 2OOG ). 6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be t,t proper perspective. This would normally mear. decision in Umadevi, each department or eact) should undertake a Ane-time exercise and prer casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who het for more than ten years without the interventic tribunals and subject them to a process v? whether they are working against vacant posts, requisite qualification for the post and if so, services. clerstood in its that after the instrumentality tre a list of all e been working t of courts and 'itication as to rtd possess the L.gularize their

7. At the end of six months from the date Umadevi, cases of several da ily-wage/ad - hoc/ct were still pending before Courts. Conseq departments and instru mentalities did not cont, time regularization process. On the otht:t Government departments or instru menta litie:; one-time exercise excluding several e,'t consideration either on the ground that their ca:;, in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such cirt employees who were entitled to be considered t 53 of the decision in Umadevi, will not lose t. considered for regularization, merely becaus< exercise was completed without considering because the six month period mentioned in par t has expired. The one-time exercise should co, wage/ad hoc/those employees who had put r continuous service as on 10.4.2006 withot protection of any interim orders of courts or t employer had held the one-time exercise in terr Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of som: were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umade concerned should consider their cases also, as e the one-time exercise. The one time exercise w only when all the employees who are entitled t in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so consider= fi decision in ;ual employees ently, several lence the ane- hand, some undertook the E loyees from :; were pending L msta nces, the 1 terms of Para eir right to be the one-time heir cases, or 53 of Umadevi :;ider all daily- t 10 years of t availing the 'ibunals. If any ,:; of para 53 of e,mployees who 'i, the employer continuation of Ir be concluded t be considered t 20 SN,J wP 3 t9 t6 2022 te of n s ects, a tce. re u nza to ensu fem lovino Ders nso adev was departments/ instru m entalities do not DETDE tuate the Dra ctice dailv- waoe/ad- e ods dica Il redularize them o nthea rou nd that th v have served for n th con or statutor latino to recruitment and ADD ointme t. The true effect of the direction is tha all rm tha e 70.4.2006 (the date of decis,on tn Umadevi) wit,hout the Dro of an court ar tribunal, in vacant DOS ts, possessr nq the reo uisite aua lification. are entitled to be consi,dered for the emolo r has not un dertake tion o anv tn rtm o nsw have ularization. tion w hin such exerc Dro e fact tution n e Um devi or that such exe ise was unde rea rd to not d ted few. a limi T ton I ken onlvrn sen title such a a measure. a

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

10. The Division Befici't of the High Court has directed that the cases of ;'espondents 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 geieral one_ time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casua l/ad - hoc employees serving the Zila panchayat and'if so whether such employees (inctuding 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 shal! have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfilt the requirements of 2l SN,J wP 319t6 2022 Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not t e regularised. If the employees who have completed ten year service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribet for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may Lrt considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This app'1 al is disposed of accordingly. L4. In the iudqment of the Apex Court i r Nihal Sinqh and others v. State of Puniab reDorted in 65, the Supreme Court considered the case )f absorption 2013) 14 SCC L of Special Police Officers appointed by th<: State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose r isposal their services were made available. It held that :he mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did rr, rt render the appellants 'employees' of those Banlr; since the appointment was made by the State an I disciplinary controt vested with the State. It held that t]r,: creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadrr is a matter exclusively within the authority of the Sta te, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but r hose to make appointments of persons creating contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It a ! o refu sed to accept the defence t there were no sa ctioned oosts and so there was iustification for the St rte to uti lise servlcesof larqe number o Deo le like the _ rppellants for t I 22 SN,J wP 3t9t6 2022 decades. It h ld that "sa nctione oosts do not fal I from heaven" and that create them va the Stat has t con cro us choic e on the basis of some rational asse ed. Referrinq to U madevi. it held that the aoo ella nts ssment before the were not arb itrarilv chosen, initial r Dresc ADDO tntment was not a 'irreq u la r'aooointment as it had been made in accorda nce with the statutorv orocedure e Police Act, 1861 and the State ca n not beh eard to sav that thev are not entitled to be into t e services of the State on Derman ent a bsor basi as, acco dino to i , their aopointments were D urelv temo rarv and nof aoainst nv sanctio ned oosts created bv the State. It was held that the i udo ment in Umadevi cannot become a lice nce for exD loitation bv the State and its in I he Govern ent of enta I ities neith r Puniab n or those public se r Banks ca co ntin ue Dractice lnconsrstent with their oblioation to fun ction in accordance with the Constitution.

15. The iudoment oft he Dex Court reDorted in 2015 scc online SC 1797 betwee B.Sriniva sulu and others v Nellore Municioal Co poration Reo.bv its Commi roner, 23 SN,J wP 3t916 2022 Nellore District. Andh ra Pradesh and otherr; in particular oarasTandSr eads as under: Court. The ri oht of the aDDellants to se' (7) We find it difficult to a cceDt the reasonint adopted bV the Hioh ularization flows from the G.O No.212 dated 22.4.19t', . The aDpellant have been in servi'ce of the first resDondent no cnlv Dri r to the issuance of the said G.O. but even subseeuen to the issue of G.O. till todav. The respondent Municipality b ),tng a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Insp:e of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite fo' almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appella,t s and continued to extract work from the appellants. t

8. In the circumstances, refusing the benr mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appert the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifyinq appeal by directing that the appellants' servic( with effect from the date of their completrng continuous service as was laid down by thts Collector/Cha irperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh SCC 4BO. 'it of the above t,tts approached iustified. In the the order under ; be regularised their five year :ourt in District 1 Ors. 2009 (8)

16. In Amark ant Rai v State of Bihar repo ted 2 1 8 SCC 265. the Suoreme Court held that '"he objective ^ras behind the exception carved out in this case to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointmen s, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensur secu ritv of emplovme tofth ose Dersons who had set' ,ed th State Govern ment and their instrumentalities for I rore an ten vea rs" In that case emolovee was workin for 29 ve rs. 24 , SN,J wP I 1916 2022 Thas decisiona DDTO ves T r view expresse ,L.K ari e racted bove. L7. In State of Jarkha d v Kamal Prasad re Dorte (2014l7 scc 223, similar vaew was ta ken bv the Su oreme Co rt and i was held as fol lows: "47.... In view of the cateqo rical findino of fact on the relevant con tentious rssue that the resDondent emplo vees have con tinued in thetr service for more than70 contInuouslv heiefore. the leoal orinci ole laid down bv this Court in Uma tate of arnata avUma devi (2006) 4 SCC : 2006 Scc (L&st 73) at oara 53 souarelv hof thet ion B Hioh Court the respondent em rt veesa thes me ca not be n red wi tn te vt case sto the Dre_serr t case en title d bv this Court." rishtlv held that r the re ,e The D -s-

18. The Judgment of this Court dated 06.L2.2O22 passed in W.P.No.276O2 ot 2019 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 10.1O.2O23 and atso 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 Krish n a Mand r Trust V. State of Maha rashtra and Others reo orted 25 SN,J wP 3t9t6 2022 I 2 Su reme Court 3969 and in ri rrticular Dara Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows: "100. The High Courts exercising their jur s,diction u nder ,rnly have the Article 226 of the Constitution of India, nct power to issue a writ of mandamus or iri :he nature of mandamus, but are dutv-bound to g xercise such power, where the Government or a Du rlic authoritv has failed to exercise or has wron xercised discretion conferred uDon it bv a statut( ru le or a oolicv decision of the Government or ras exercised such discretion mala fide, or r) 1 irrelevant co nsi deratio n, r (

101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel rerformance in an appropriate and lawful manner of i"le discretion conferred upon the Government or a public I uthority." 20, The Division Bench of this Court in ts Judqment ted 1O.06.2O13 oassed in W.A.Nos.782 of lOlO and 854 of 2Ot2 while uo holdino the Judoment dat,3l 08.O9.2O10 oassed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.hl c.48 of 2O o8 observed as under:- "Further, it is manifest from the material or services oF the similarly placed persons who app Courts were regularized. The appellant-Corporr various office o rders/circu la rs dated 20.12.1!) 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for r casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen T of the iD Act prohibits unfair labour practice I or workman. As can be seen from the factual cases on hand, engaging the respondents for continuous period of time on casual basis is r c labour practice attracting the provisions of Sec ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying of the Apex Court, rightly held that the responJ to regularization as directed in the impugnel record that the .oached the law I on a lso issued ',9, tt.o9.1.992, :gularization of ,hat Section 25- 1, any employer scenario of the uch a long and tling but unfair icn 25-T of the rn the decisions )nts are entitled orders, as the 26 SN,J wP i 1916 2022 learned single Judge considered all the aspects of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals.,,

21. The Division Benchoft ated L9.O9.2 L7 is Courtinit sed in W.P.N .272L7 of 2 reDo rted in 2018(2) ALD oao 282 at Dara 16 and oar L7 a18 Judq ment o rved a under:- "16. It is trite that the jaw 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 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, Cated 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 favcur of the States where State enactments banning reg u la riza tio n/a bso rption ex ist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 10O and G.O. Ms. N o.212, dated 22.4.L 994, do not whittle down the width and the , ower the traiectorv fthed irections issued bv the Suoreme Court in Para 53 of its iudo ment in Uma Devi's for th nd G. e 94 etitioners, who have ad m itted Iv, satisfied the criteria laid down in Para Nc .53 of the iudoment in Uma Devi 's case (s ora ). 18. For the aforementioned reasons. order, dated 27.6.2011 , in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ Detition is ion to the su r s ond n s.N .2L a llowed with the direct rm ts ct2of1 ted 22 n Man m h n n t 27 SN,J wP 31916 2022 resDondents to cons ider reoularisation of _ he services of the Detitioners aoainst the existino vacit rcies of Work InsDectors and aooo int them subiect to ! reir satisfvinq the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of t t' e iudqment in Uma Devi's case (suora ThiS OTOCeSS mul be completed within two months from the date of receU ,_t- ef--a-!Opy-ef this order." 'l

22. The Division Bench of this Court in _ ts Judoment dated 21.04.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.t ol 2O2t) in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23057 of 2019 reDorted in 202:l r(4)ALD paqe 379 at Daras 45, 48 a d oara 5O observed as i_ under:- "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have ,een working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almo t (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimurr t-ime-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till <1, te.

48. It is not known whv the 1st respr) rdent has not followed the decision in Uma Devi's c:t ;e (suora), as exolained in M.L. Kesari's case (suora) a11 I undertaken a one-time exercise of preparing the list_ of daily wage emplovees who had worked for more than ten (1O ) vears without the intervention of the Courts and 'ribunals as on 10.4,2006 and subiect them to a Drocess vr,rification as to whether thev are workinq aqainst var rnt Dosts and possess reouisite qualifications for the [L! sts, and if so. reqularize their servi ces.

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowel the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st rest cndent rejecting the cases of petltioners for regularization of elrvices on one- time basls are declared as illegal, arbitrary :nd violative of Articles 14, t6 and 21 of the Constituticr of India; the resoondents are directed to regularize orL one-time basis petitione rs'services from the date each of the Detitioners comDlete 10 vears of service on dailv rn aoes from the 1:y shall not be entitled to anv moneta rv retief. The said e. :ercise hall be done within two (2) weeks from the dal -" of recEIDtof copv of the order." softh tr m nt. B 28

23. n ent ail dto r cha r eth rdu SN,J wP i 19 16 2022 xamlntn the re petitio n for re ul ers'servic es, who are workin qas on er e f tza nof swe e Ders ndf rther to c nsid r their re u st the temD rarv service of the Detition ers in the last o rade DOStofoa rt tim e suJe Der as requl r one or all ourooses b f r w ln r men from ime ime from h the Detition ers, tn accord nce to law. h

24. This Cou rt oprnes that petitioners are entitled for considerationofoetitioners'caseforo ra nt of the relief as f ed for tn t Wri rew f the obs ervatio ns of he Aoex Cou rt in vanous i udq rn nts ( referred o and extract ed ahouel an the view of the Division Beneh of thi s Court in the Jud ment s referred to and extracted ab ve. Peti

25. Takino into co n sid eration: - a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned 29 SN,J wP )t9t6 2022 standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.5. c) The observations of the Apex Court i I the various judgments (referred to and extracted abo! e) and again enlisted below: i)(2o2o) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2025 rNsC 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) Scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (201s) I Scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 Scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ol 2O24 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(a)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2OItr and 854 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment datcrr I 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 ol 2OO7 and C.C.|\I c.4g of 2OOg (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated

19.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.272L7 of 2O7', (referred to and extracted above), 30 SN,J wP 31916 2022 f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l of 2020 in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.23057 of 2OL9 (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 Detitioners are directed to out-forth the claim of the Detitioners for reoularization of Deti tioners' services, and also the claim of the Detitioners to treat the tem porarv services of the petitio[ers in the last qrade Dost of Sweeper as reqular one for all ourooses bv orantinq last qrade oav with eriodical increm n date of aooointment of r vised from time to time fr mth the Detitioners and all e closi a all the relevant d con se ue ntia I n fi documents in suooort cf oetitioners' case as Dut-forth in the tresent writ oetition. within a period of one (O1) week from the date of receiot of copv of the order and the respondents shall examine and consider the same in accordance to law. in conformit y with principles of natural u rovidin a o r nl of ers n ann to the Detitioners. in terms of orders oassed by the Suoreme 'Court in Uma Oevi' the iu d o mentn i1 SN.J wP 3 1916 2022 j SCC Paqe 1, in W.P.No.24377 o1' 2OO7 dated re or d 2 11 1 ALD P g _234 and as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 10 lt 2 13 and also as oer Division Bench Judqment of thi 5 -ea.qrt-daEcd reDorted in 19.0 assed in W 217 o0 o 2018(2)ALD Daqe 2A2 and also the Dir ision Bench ) ud q ment of this Court dat 2L.O4.202',1I Dassed in I .A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2O t9 in W.P.No.2 O57 of 2o19 re Dorted in 2O2O(4)ALD o e 379 which _ rad attained e d finalitv. within a oerio d of four (O4) weeks f 'om the date of recei Dto f a co NV of thi takinq into A ul r consid eration the observa tions and the law aid down bv the Aoex Court in the various iudqments ( rr:1 erred to and extracted ud ment of bove), and in Darticular, Dara I1o.53 A exC rt in the cas t f e tate of Karna ka v. Uma Devi and dulV COm n runlca decision to the Detitioners. Howev r, therr: sh be no order as to costs. 32 SN,.I wP 3 1916 2022 Miscellaneous petitions. if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. ._-.__ Sd/.A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR //TRUE COPY// ASSTSTANT gGtsrRAC e one Fair copy to rhe Hon,bre MRS JUSIcE ,r*="o?ifJlonlf?tt,..^ (For Her Ladyships Kind pertlat) To Union or rndia Ministrv or Law, Justice and company Advocares Association L i brarv, H is h court

1. 1'1 LR Copies. ' I[: i":fl,"JrtfiI;1"" ' if,.t^"r::ll;l;lr"l?lY" "" 4. The principa'l Secretary, panchayathraj and Rural F - Telangana' S""r"ruriIt Hyderabad, sratu or r"ran#Slovment 5. lhe principal Secretar " 5r;,9"je ;;[ b 1rffiflJ;illia ' ilEili:fi8f H+J,;l;;l,ie a nd PIa n nins Depa rtm en t, secretariat, ' ,113"?:ffiltsioner of scho'"ol Education Department, Govt. of retangana, tion Depa rtm ent' rEta nsa na secreta riat, Department, a d, Jos u I a m b a G ad wa r D i s t ri c r 9. 6H ?U%'Jfi i 8lY%?fli EJi,'[: IJ.1?"1i{ti'] '' lVo"",t"olll ?j.ir?* senvtces-t' u"d;'d;'"irt,. the state or retansana, at 1'1. One CC to SRt R CHANDRA SHEKAR REDDY, SC FOR Mpp Zpp [OPUC] ,*o CD Copies SA N' ,r"r, HIGH COURT DATED:14108t2025 ORDER WP.No.31916 of 2022 oR It1F: .s i:,.j 3 \ r( i zI 226 t F''I\TCI ),? ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS c.\ R 9,b^% 0 )b