The High Court · 2025

Heard Sri Ch.Ganesh, tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri pradeep Reddy Katta, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 and 5. 2 The oetitioner aooroached the Court seekino oraver as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the aition of the Respondents in not treating the services of petitioner as regular one in last grade [ost, even after ex'haust of life ene-rgies and youth in 36 years long service, as unjust, unfair, glbitgv and violation of erttcle i4, L6, it, ze'G) 43 and 30O (A) of our Constitution in denying leiitimate living wages 'airict ite 1$ Respondents of la.st.grade pa.y and prays to herein to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one lr_oT lhe.gate. of. initial appotntrnent i.e. from 24-O7-L}BS by applying the decision and princlple laid by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court reported i'n 2O2O 14y nLo 379 TS (DB) and by applying the decision and princip-le'laid by the Hon,ble lrp.-"I9.99y! i.t para 36 and"37 in the Judgemenr in C.A. No. 6798/2019 & Batch Cases dated O2_og_ZdLg (2019 (10) SCC 516) in C.A. No. 1254 ot 2018 to reckon contingent services of petitio ner for computation of qualifuing service to gr€nt of pension, gratuity and other retirement b6nefits with all consequential monetary -ben-efits including seniority with 4 SN,J w_28405_2021 arrears of pay in last grade post along with periodical increments as revised from the date of appointment of the petitioner with 100o/o compensation as per princlple lald by Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Avtar Chand in C.A.No.3416-3445 of 2010 & Batch Cases dated 19-02-2019 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by applying principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 141 of our Constitution and pass..... "

3. I a^r.lnaA anrrraaal :rrt6a-ts a rtat atlt hahrlf oetitioner olacino reliance on the averments made in the affidavit filed in suooort of the oresent writ oetition pertainino in oarticular, to the services rendered bv oetitioner with the resDond nts hercin for more than a decade contends that the oetitaoner is entithd for the relief as oraved for in the oresent writ oetition. PERIISED T E RECORD:- DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- 4. Learned counsel aooearino on behalf of the petitioner submits that the sgbiect issue in the present case is souarelv covered bv the order of this Coult, dated Oa.Og.2O1O Dassed an w.P.N0.24377 ol 2OO7 reDorted in 2011(1) ALD. Paoe 234 as confirmed in W.A.ilo.782 of 2O1O, dated 1O.O6.2O13 and also order, dated 19.O9.2017 d in W.P.No.2721-7 ol 2Oa7 reoorted in 2O18 (2) ALO .t 5 SN,J w_zt1/J6_2O2t Paqe 282 and also the otder. dated 21.O4.2O2O oassed in W.P.No.23O57 of 2Ot9 reported ln 2O2Oi4) ALD paoe 379.

5. Learned standino counsel aooearinq on behalf of the respondent No.4 submits that the orievance of the oetitioner as out-forth in the oresent Writ petition had not been addressed to the resoondenis herein as on date and therefore. the oetitioner cannot complain inaction on. the oart of resoondents herein in considerinq the orievance of the oetitioner and hence. the retief as praved for bv the petitioner in tfre o and no Mandamus can be issued aqalnst the respondents here nder as souoht for and the neti oner ma toD -forth e Detiti ner's ori ance as Dut- forth in the oresent Wrat petition bv wav of a detaaled reoresentation to the rcsoondents herein and uoon receiot of the said reoresentation. ihe resoondents woutd consider the same in accordance to law within a reasonable oeriod.

6. Learned counset ap does not disoute the said submission made bv the tearned 6 SNJ w_z8//J6_2t21 standino counsel aooearinq on behalf of the resoondent No.4

7. fhe Aoex Court in the judoment reoorted in (2O2O) 1 SCC (L&S) in Prem Sinoh v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, at oara 36 held as under: "36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30- .10 or more years whereas they have been superannuated. l\s they have worked in the work-charged establishment, not against any particular project, their services ought to have been regularized under the Government instructlons and even as per the decision of this Court in State of l(arnataka 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, those employees who have worked for ten years or more s:hould have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as others lrave 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 b,efore attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired fiom the reoular establishment and the setyices rendered bv them rioht from the dav thev entered the work-charoed es oualifirino service for ouroose of oension." A. The Aoex Court in the case of Dharwa District PWD Llterate Dailv Waoe Emolovees Association Vs. State of Karnataka reoorted in 1990(2) SCC Paoe 396 laid orincipte ( 7 SN,J wP_28406_2021 that the State should not keeo a oenson in temoorary or adhoc service for lonq oeriod and have to treat such oersons as reqular one.

9. Para No.53 of the of the iudoment of the Aoex Court in the State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevl, dated 1O.O4.2O06 reoorted in (20O6) 4 SCC 1 ls extracted hereunder:- "53. One asDect needs to lre clarified. There mav be cases where irreqular aooointments (not illeoal apoointments) as explained in S.V. Naravanapoa 11967 (1) SCR 128L R.N. Naniundaooa 11972 (1) SCC 4O9I and B.N. Naoaraian 11979 (4) SCC 5O7l and referred to in oara 15 above, of dulv oualified oersons in dulv sanctioned vacant oosts mloht have been made and the emoloyees have continued to work for ten vears or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The ouestion of reoularization of the services of such emolovees mav have to be considered on merits in the lioht of the orincioles settled bv this Court in the cases abovereferred to and in the laoht of this iudoment. In that conterG. the Union of India, the State Governments and thear instrumentalaties should take steos to reoularize as a one-time measure. the services of such irreoularlv aooointed. who have worked for ten vears or more in dulv sanctioned oosts but not under cover of otders of the courts or of tribunals and should-further ensure that raerrrhr raarr .ilr?r-hlG *haaa vacant sanctioned posts that reouire:to be filled uo, in cases where temoorarv emolovees or daily waoers are beino now emoloved. The orocess must.be set in motion within six months from this date. .... rrndar.*rlzaa a 8 SNJ , p_28M_2V21

10. The ludoment of the Aoex Court dated 2O.12.2O24, SfuCs v. Union of hdia an oaraqraoh Nos.12, 13, 24, 26, 27 and 28 are extracted Ecrec{E lsi "12. Despite being labelted as '.part-time workersr" the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regutar, and akin to the responsibilities typicafly associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the lndispensabte nature of their work. 13. Tfte claim bv the resoondents that these were not reoutar oosts tacks merit, as the nature of the work oerformed bv the aooellants was oerennia! and fundamentat to the functionino of the The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their dassification as regular posts, irrespective of how thelr 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 rreed 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. I ( 9 SN,J w_2t/iJ6_202t

24. The landmark judgment of the Unlted 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, illustriting the consequences of misclassirying employees to circumv-ent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Afpeals 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 contractoL 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 employmeni status and the- __corresponding rights and benefits. Il i workers receive fair treatment. 26. . . While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) -entrtes sought to curtail the practice of backdoor and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misa pplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. Thls judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" nts. "irregu lar', ,l time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutiofls rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where thelr (^. l0 SNJ !vp_28406_202 I 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 regularizatlon exlsts for temporary employees, judgment's explicit ovedooking the acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective aoolication distorts the iudoment's soirit and ouroose, effqctivelv .weaoonizino it aoainst emolovees who have .rendered lndisoensable services over dccadcs. 27. In llght of these considerations, in our ,f,pinion, lt ls imperative for government ,lepartments to lead by example in providing fair and stable ernployment. Engaging workers on a t:emporary basls for extended periods, especially ,ivhen their roles are integral to the organization's lunctioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization lo legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote Job securaty, 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 hbour practices an 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 aslde and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 .tO.2018 are quashed ; 1l SN,J w_zwJnzt ii. The aooellants shall be taken back on dutv forthwith and their selwices reqularised forthwith. However, the apoellants shall not be entitled to pecuniary benefits/back waqes for the oeriod thev have not worked for but would be entitled to continuitv of services for the said period and the same would be counted for their oost- retiral benefits."

11. The Judoment of the Aoex Court dated 31.O1.2O25 reported in 2O25 INSC 144 in "SHRIPAL AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NfGAM, GHAZIABAD", in particular, the relevant oefa Ngs.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder: "15. ft is rnanifest that the Aooellant Workmen continuouslv rendered their services over severAl vQars, sometimes soannins more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not oroduced in full, the Emolover's failure to furnish such records- desoite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-established labour iurisorudence. Indian labour law stronqly disfavors oeroetual dailv-wage or contractual engaqements in circumstances where the work is oermanent in nature. Mqrally and leqallv, workers who fulfil o4ooinq mu nicipat requirements vear after year t2 . SNJ wp_2&106_2021 aoneement. 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 laggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rlghts and Job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterlzed by lack of benefits, job security, and fair tfeatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government i nstitutions, entrusted with npholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entitles engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed ln the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. 25. It ls a dlsconcerting reality that temporary employees, partlcularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundatlonal purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2O24 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obtigations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: of, *Te Dorarv" oMi bels: Em Dlovees enqaoed for wofk that is essentiat, recurrino, and inteoral to the functionino of an institutaon tTl l3 SNJ wp_28406_m2l those of rcoular emolovees. Such misclassification deorives workers of the diqnitn securihr, and benefits that reoular emolovees are entitled to, desoite oerformino identical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the prlnclples of hatural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. . Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally slgnificant. o Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary empfoyees, effectively replacing one sef'---'- of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a dellberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen clrcumstances."

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employerb inablllty to Jllgtify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some l4 SNJ wp_28406_2021 measure of parity in minimum pay. 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. U. In light of these Employer's discontinuation of the stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services wene terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.p. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev were enqaoed in essential, oerennial duties. these workers cannot be releoated to perpetual uncertaintv. Whate concerns of municipal budoet and complaance with recruitment rules merit consideration- such concerns do not absolve the Emplol.er of statutorv oblioataons considerations, the Appellant Workmen bureaucratic limatatbns cannot trump the leoitamate riohts of workmen who have served continuouslv in

18. The im Duoned order of the rt. to the extent thev confine the Aooellant Workmen to future r I r l5 SN,J wp_28406_2021 meaninoful back waoes. is herebv set aside with the followinq directions: I. The dlscontinuation 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 communlcatlons 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 continulty in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen 3n their respective posts (or posts akln to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. Their entire oeriod of absence (from the date of termination until actua! reinstatement) shall be for oo tinuilrr of service a d all conseouential benefits. such as senaoraw and 3 III. Consldering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. IV. The Resoondent Emolover is directed to initi te a fairandt reqularizano the Appellant Workmen within six months from the date of reinstatement- dulv 6niiderino the fact that thev have oerformed nsDaren 'l o i'l t6 (- SNr wp_284M_2021

19. In view of the above, the appeal(s) filed by the workmen are ailowed, whereas the appear(s) fired by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed."

12. gpg.*. C"rrt C"r"" t+g. "s4 "The Fuil Bench of th9 H.igh court, whire adjudicating -ancruded, tiri-iiii"iirv upon the above controversy had emptovees were not entitred to the mrnimui-or tn" ,.git;ip"i_ scale, merely for the reason, that the "ainii., arried on hv laitv-wasers a.nd resutar emptayees w"riGiiiir. rni iitt"oin|j however, male two exceptions. remporary iiptoyees, who fert in either of the-t'wo exceptions, were nefi entittea to'*agii ;t the minimum of the pay-sat9 .drywn- Oy-,egiia, employees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench'or ine High'colrc in thi impugned judgment are extracted hercundir:_ "(1) A dairy wager, ad hoe or contractuar appointee against the regurar sanctioned posts, ir appoinfJi ;il undergoing a serection process-basei upon' fairness aid equatity of .opp.ortunity to att other eligibte unaiui.r, shat be entiued to minimum of the regira, pry tiiiiT;;; t^ t7 SN,J w_28/06_2021 ontinuouslv. with notional bteaks. by the State Government or lE lnsf,jrumentalities for a sufficient lono oerid I.e. for 7O vearc. such daily waoerc, ad hoc or confracf,rtal apoolnfrles shzll be entltled to minimum of frre ,qular pay *ate without anv te asumpClon that work of allowanes on oetennial natute is available and havino worked for such lono oerlod of time, an eouitable right is creafrld in such afuoorv of oercons. Their claim for reaularizatlon. lf anv, mav have to be considered seoaratelv in trrrms of leoally permissible scheme. (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after morc than thre yearc and two months of @mptetion of 70 years of @ntinuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or.@ntndud employee shall be entitled to arrea6 for a perlod of threF- years and two months."

13. The iudoment of the APex Couft reoorted in 2O1O(91 SCC 247 between: State of Karn?taka and others v M.L.Kesari and otherc. in oailicular. oaras 4 to 9 reads as under:

4. The decision in State of Kamataka v. Umadevi was rendered 7). In that case. a in 2OO6 4) on 7O.4 .2006 keDo constitution knch of this Cnurt held that appointments made without fottowing the due pro@ss or the rules relating to appointment did not onfer any right on the appointees and courts @nnot dircct their absorption, regularization or re- engagement nor make their seruie permanent, and the High Coii in exercise of juridiction under Article 226 of the constitution should not ordinarily is*e directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent antinuane unless the recruitment hid been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutionat scheme; and that the @ur,F.. must be careful in ensuring that they do not tnterfere unduly with the economic arrangCment of its affatrs by tlr- State or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to b instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and stafultory mandates. This Court further held that a temporary, @ntftctaal. casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had fruen appointd in terms of the relevant rules or in l8 SN,J w_2t16_2O2t adherence of Attictes 14 and 16 of the An*itution. This C.ourt l2yevgr ryade o.ne exception to ti. "ooii'-;;;;;;", and the same is extracted below : "5. It is evident ftom th9 above that there is an exception t: thl s9n?rat principtes against . r.gitiiiiiri-Jtrunciated in Umadevi, if the foilowing conditions aft fuffitted- : -' (i) The employee concerned .should have wo*ed for lO yeal or more in duty sanctioned Dost without tt " ininl il'prctection of the interim order of anv court or tribunal, n oii{r words, the state Government or i;s instrumentatity "h;;i-;;;. emptoyed the emptoyee and continu.ed nim in'iiii iiiinarity ana continuously for more than ten yearc. (ii) Ihe appointment of such employee should not be illegat, even if irregutar. Where the apioiitmeii-i-n"iot made or f 19 SN,J wp_2t406_202 I @ntinued against sandiotad posts or wherc the Persons appointed do not @ssess the pre*rtbed minimum qualifi@tions, the appointments wtlt be considercd to be lllqal. But where the qualifiations and person employed possesd the had been seleded was working against sanctlaned without undergoing the prcess of open @mpetitive selection, such appointments arc anstdered to be inegular. posts, but 6, The term 'one-time measute' has to be underctood in its proper percpective. This would normally mean that after the decision in lJmadevi, each depaftment or each should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all asual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the lntevention of ourts and tribunats and subject tfiem to--a-"pto@s verifiation as to whether they arc working against vaczrnt posts and possess the requisite qualification for the posr. and if so, regularize their sevices.

7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in Umadevi, cases of several daily- wage/ad-ho4@sual emPloYees were still pending before Coutb. several departments and instrumentalities did not commen@ the one' other hand, some time regularization process, On the undertook the Government departments or sevenl emPloYees from one-time exercise excluding consideration either on the ground that their @ses were pending in courts or due to sher ovetslght. In such circumstatrces, the employees who were entitled to h onsdeted in terms of Para 53 of the decision in lJmadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely beause the one'time exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six rnonth period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one'ttme exerct* should consider all daily- wage/adhodthose employe* wlD had put in 70 years of 20 SNJ w_2t4o5_2t2t @ntinuous seruice as on [0.4,2006 without avaiting the ptote.dion .of any lnterim ordes of @uds or iriOinats. if a,iy employer had held the one-time exercise in termiif pa, SS 6f llmadevi, but did not ansider the can, oi iri iipioyees nno were entitled to the beneftt o.f para 53 of llmadevt, ihe employer onerned should consider their @ses also, as a ontinuattoi of the_ one-time exercise. The one time exeiise wiit b,e anctudd 91ly when the gmptoyees who are entitted io ie considercd in terms of para 53 of Umadevi, are so consiiircd.- -a.!l -

9.-These appeats have been pelding for more than four yea$ ,zfter the decision in umadevi. The'Appetb;; (Zia eanchayat, Gadag) has not considered tne diei-oi'Uponaents of twularization within six months of the decisiion Umaaeq or t:hereafter. -ii -10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the <ases of respondents should be considered in aiioraane wttn 2l SN,J u/p_28406_2021 law. The only futther direction that needs be given, in view of lJmadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag shwld 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 seruing the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill them, their seruices have to be rqularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents I to 3 because of the pendency of the cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in antinuation of the said one time exercise within three months, It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of umadevi, their ser:r:icrus need not be regularised, If the employees who have completed ten yearc sentice do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appeal is diqosd of accordingly. t4. 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appetlants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was rnade by the State and disciplinary controt vested with the State. ft held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts f6-r a-Cadr-€-i5_-f--matter 22 SNJ w_28405_N2t excluslvely within the authority of the State, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appolntments of persons creatang contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also fefused to acceot the defence that there were no sanctioned oosts a4g!_ so there was iustification for the State to utilise gices of nroe numUer o decades. It held that .'sanctioned oosts do not fall from reryen" ana tnat tne St conscious choice on the basis of some rationat assessment ot neea. neferrino to U @intment was not an ' legE.-madejfl accordance with the statutorv orocedure @ot be heard to sav that Urbea lnto tt" se*i". DadS as. accotdano to at, their apoointments wgre ourelv tglEporarv and not aoainst anv snctioned posts created Ey-U€-Statq It e iudqment n Uma evi held that +Ory+,,.Oeco,rne a ticence ru r 23 SN,J wp_2E&6_?,/2l Puniab nor those oublic sector Banks can continue such a oractice inconsistent with their oblioation to funetion in accordance with the Constitution.

15. The iudoment of the Aoex Court reoofted ln 2O15 SCC Online SC 1797 between B.Sranivasulu and others v Nellore Munacaoal Corooration ReD.bv. its Commissioner, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh and others, in oafticular oaras 7 and 8 reads as under: (7) We find it difficult to accept the reasoning adoDted bv the .O. bu c,O. till todav. The re'spodent Municipality belng a statutory the G.O. 272(supra). Inspite of the above body is obliged by respondents kept quite for almost 20 years mentioned G.O. the the seruice of the appellants and @ntlnued without regularising to extract wo* from the appellants.

8. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants aprcached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not Justifled. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appea! by directing that the appellants' sen/i@s be tqularid with effect from the date of their completing thelr five year continuous seruice as was laid down by thls Court ln Distrid Coltector/Chairperson & athers vs. M.L. Singh A Orc. 2@9 (8) scc 480.

16. In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar reoorted (2O151 8 SCC 265. the Supreme Court held that 'The obiective 24 r-i\ SN,J w_2W_2021 behind the exceptaon carved out in this ciase was to permat regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not ittegal, and to ensurie appointments, which are irregular but not illegat, and to ensure securitv of emElovment of those persons who had served the State Gg ygaIs". fn that case. emolovee was workino for 29 vearc. P Suoreme Court and it was held as follows :

18. Th€ Judgment of this Court dated c,6.:.2.2c/22 passed in W.p.No.27GO2 of 2Ot9 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha f ( 25 SNJ w_2,,406_?0zl Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of thls Court ln W.A.No.937 ot 2023 dated 1O.1O.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated

09.08.2024 in SLP No.32847 0t 2024.

19. The iudor,nent of the Aoex Court in Hari Krishna Mandii Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others rcoorted in AIR 2O2O Suoreme Gourt 3969 and in oarticular oara Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows: "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of '-man<Iamus, but are duw-bound to exerCis€ sirCh oower, where the Government or a oublic authoritn has failed to exercise or has wronolv exercised discretion conferred uoon it bv a statute- or a rule, or a policr, decision of the Government or has exercased such discretion mala fade, or on irrelevant consideration.

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

20. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judoment dated 10.06.2013 oassed an W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O and 854 of 2O1i while uoholdino the Judoment dated O8.O9.2O1O 26 SN,J w_28446_2021 Bas gbEerved as under:- "Further, it ls manifest from the material on record that the services of the similarly_placed person, *to ipp-u.hed the law coyrts wele regulari,id. ftre appeffanl_iorp-dration atso issued various office orders/ctrculars iit"a zo.iligeg, ri.o;g.igs1, O6.LO.2OOZ and tatest Ueing a.Z.-OOS--foi .egutarization of casuauco-ntract employees, Itr:s arso to be seen that section 25- T of the ID Act prohtbits unfairlabou. p.".i[L Uv or workman. As can be seen from tnL iaauir icenirio 6r-[# "nv ".prov"t. cases on hand, engaging the respondents foi such a tong anJ continuous period of !!mi on casual basij iinothing Uut -unfair labour practice attracting the provisions'ir'l".tion 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Sing-le Jud'ge *nif" .ufying on the decisions of the Apex court, righti-y treu lhat ttr" i".'pon'aunts are entitred to regularizaflon as directed in the impuinea ora".s, as ihe Judge conslde.ua uir ir," i-rpEcl or *re maner in le^a.T9d._s19te ueLarr, rn Ene prcper p-erspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant lnterference in it ese aipearl;

21. @q observed as under:- 7 -'aiicre ] 16, It is trlte that the law declared by the Supreme Court is jlinaip throughout th_e .country unal. 141 of the (:onstitution of India. It_. is noteworttry tnai- Oy the time the judgment in lJma .Mn!b_ ^?n tsup.bl, *". rendered, the F,rovisions of Act 2 of tg94 ,n-O 'C.d. ui. ruo.ZrZ, aut"O 2.2.4.L994, were an..existence. fn.- iupiel" Court, while denouncing. the practice of regutariziti;i;; absorption of f persons, who entered service [hrough back doors UV giving a go-bye to the due procedure p.u.iiOJ foi appointments to p.ublic posts, conscio-usly ' for one_time arrsorption/regurarization of those, wtro- were working for a period of not less tha.n 1_O years. Ii has given directions in this regard to all the State Ge-vernments Union of India. oraerea - "ni "tro f ( 27 SNJ w9_?w_20l1 The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments srch as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O, Ms. No.212, datd 22.4.L994, 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 banriing regularization/absorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 lOO tnd G.O. luls. No.212. dated 22.4.1994. do not whittle down the w:dth and the iudgment in ltiaaiula Easfiiai's case (supral, does not lower the traiectorw of the directions issued bv the Supreme Couft in Para 53 of ats judoment in Uma Devi's case (suora). It is, thernefore. not oermissible for the rcspondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.o. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, to denv reoularization to the petltlonerc, who have. admiftedlv. satisfied the criteria lald down in Para No.53 of the iudoment in Uma Denl's case (iuora).

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2OL7, in OA No.l442 of 20L4, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside respondents to consider reoularisation of the services of the petitionerc against the existino vacancies of Work Inspectots and aopoint them subiect to thear satisftring the Giiteri ia lSial down in Para No.53 0f the iudoment in Uma DeviS case (suora). This process must be completed wlthin turo months from the date of receiot of a coDY of this order."

22. The Division Bench of this Court in its tudoment I of 2O19 -2O2O oassed nI A-Nos-1 ot 2O2O in dated 21. i llf D t?,tEZ ,rf ,a'll O aar.+all irr ?ll 2nta Al h rr.aa ?7O r+ hr;-c ,,C ta rrrrr Efl .rlica zl ra rr n Aan "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the year 2fi)O. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date. ac n.lt 48. It followed the decision in Uma Devi's case (suora)- as Is dot known rrhw the 1 recnondent 28 I SN,J w_2t1{6-2021 . exolained in M.L. Kesari.s case (supral and undettaken a erurlovees who had worked for moE than ten716)IEE tQ.+..2OOe, and subiect thlm to a pffi .whether they .are workino aoiinGt-vaEiE oosts and oossgss requiFite aualffications for the posts. and af so, reoularize their serwices.

50. Accordingly, the writ petjtion is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 p_assed by the 1st respondent relecting the cases of petitioners for regularizaflon of services on one- time basis are declared as ill-gal, arbitrary and violative of Articles L4, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the re$nendents are directed to reoularize on one-time basis- oetitipnerc: Ferviccs from the dlieffi ggge.Jele tO yearc of serwice on daiiv waoej tronr tlre illtla-t dqtes of ttrelr aooolrtiffi entitled-tg_ anv monetarw .rclief. ThG siidGxErcise shalt be done Wishin Ewo {2} weeks from the date of receiot of coov of the order.,,

23. This Court opines that in the oresent case, the respSndents failed to disch pClltloner's services, who aS. X!,orkino_as fufl time sweeper aUfu.tner to consiaer nl SWice of the petatione Der a reoul r one r al! u bvo ntino last relle oa" witn oerioaical I ttme- from the date of aooointment of the oetitioner, in accordatlgele_law. r 29 SN,J w_2E105_2OZl l a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the b) E! The submisslons made by the learned counsel of thb petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 c) the Apex Court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: ix2o2o) l scc (ia) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 (iii) 2025 rNsc 144 (iv) 2O2a LawSuit(SC) 12O9 (v) (2017) l scc 1 (vi) 2o1o(9) SCc 247 (vii) (2o13) l4SCc 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SCt797 30 (". SN,J w_2t4M_2021 (ax) (2o1s) 8 SCc 265 (x) (2014) 7 scC 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2O24 (xii) (xiii) (2006) 4 SCrc 1 (xiv) 2o11 (r) , (xv) 2O18(2)ALD (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD pase 379 Page234 R 2O2O Supteme Court 3959 d) The Division iil8!

10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.7.gZ ol 2OtO and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dated 2010 passed in W.p.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 19.09.2017 passed in W.p.No.272l7 ol 2Ot7 (referred to and .:xtracted above), f) The Division Bench order of Hris Court dated 21.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in I of 2Ot9 and W.P.No.23OSt ot 20tg (referred to and e)Cracted above). g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arraved at as atrove from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order. t" ( 3t a n sN'' wlu06_m2l n a n n n a a 1 t) Il l a :l ! :l 3 a :l I n a 32 SN,J w_2E&6]021 Miscellaneous petitions, if ooy, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/ One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble MRS (For Her Ladyship's Kind MALLIKARJUNA RAO OFFICER NANDA

1. The F'rincipal Secretary, Panchayath Raj and Rural Employment Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Departnrent, Secretariat, Hydercbad, State of Telangana.

3. The District Colleclor (Fanchayat) and Chairman, of Minimum Wages Act and District Selection Committee, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda.

4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Praja Parishad, Nalgonda Distrjct, Nalgonda.

5. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Kanagal Mandal, Nalgonda Distrir:t, TS.

6. 11 LR Copies 7. The Under secretary, Union of rndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and company / 8. The secretarv, Affairs, New Delhi .Terangana Advocates Association, Library, High court vwrve'ao:r,:ratrt Buitdings, Hyd'eiabad.'o-"- -"r -f -, '' '-' r . r : / \ loPUcl 9' One CC to SRt CH.GANESH, Advocate tOpUCl IO.ONE CC tO SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA,'SC fOT GRAM PANCHAYAT 11.Two CCs to Gp for SERVICES-!, High Gourt for the State of Telangana at 12.Two CD Cooies Hyderabad TOUTJ BSR/MP #. HIGH COURT DATED: 05/08l,2025 \ \ ORDER WP.No.28406 of 2021 trr' I (.) lHE S ( ? 5 Fr8 lfir * f ( ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION , TS T* I )a