It/ld. Khasim S/o Abdul Kareem v. The State of Teiangana

the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents herein to pay the salary of full time sweeper to the petitioner. on par with his counterparts full time sweepers working in the Panchayat Schools in Karimnagar and other district as per Proceedings No. 12771A812015, dated: 07.10.2015 and Proc.No.A3i1 7312019, dt.25.10.2021 in Iast grade time scale revised from time to time along with periodical increments as per PRC scales of 2O15 & 2020. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH. GANESH Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: SMT. M. SHALINI, GP FOR SERVICES.II Counsel for the Respondents No.4 & 5: SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, S.C. FOR ZPP The Court made the following: ORDER J SN,J \\'P 3200 t' 2022 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI t\r,NDA w TPETITIO NNo.3200 7 0F 20.lr= ORDER Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel i ppearing on behalf of the petitioner, Smt. M.Sha iri, learned Government pleader for Services_Il appearrr g on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and Sri pradeep I eddy Katta, learned Standing Counset appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5.

2.7 e a ou rt ;eekinq the pra ver aSU nder: ".,.to issue an order or direction more pat.t the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare thrl Respondents in not treating the services of petiti: one in last grade post from date oF appointment . denying to pay legitimate living wages for actually time sweeper for all purposes on par with regulal grade employees in respondent department as Ir{ committee report of 1't respondent dt.l7.O-l .Iggt Articles 74, 76, 2t, 39 (d), 43 & 300 (A) of our 1 not implementing Section 13 and 1S of Minimur 1948 and provisions of Equal Remuneration Act, l1 to call for the official records releasing serv c seniority and sanctioned posts of last grade post schools along with implementation oF High pou.( report of Government dated L7.O7.1994 t ) cularly one in action of the rer as regular petitioner by rcrking as full engaged last r High power n violation of )rstitution by Wages Act, 76 and pra ys r conditions, ' in ZPP|MPP r Committee direct the 4 SN.J wP 32007 2022 Respondents herein to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in last grade post from the date of initial appointment of petitioner 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 rn W.P.No.33936 of 2011 and Batch Cases dated 02.05.2018 (2020 (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) followed by decision of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in w.A.No.4B3 of 2021 dated 05.08.2021 based on principle lald by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.1254 of 2018 Apex Court, dated 23.03.2018 to reckon contingent services of petitioner for computation of qualifying service lo grant of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits on his retirement by releasing all consequential monetary beneflts in the last grade post on par with regularly engaged last grade employees of the respondent departments, along with periodical increments, as revised from tlme to time with 100% 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 19.02.2019 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by applying the aforesaid principles and decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court & Division Benches under Article 141 of our Constifution by this Hon'ble Court in the case of petitioner and pass..."

3. Learned counsel aoDearan o on behalf of the etitioner lacin reliance on the avermen h fidavit filed in f sent wri erta i n in h rvtces Detitioner with the resDond herein for more than a ) SN,J \\ t, i2007 2022 d ecade contends that the oetitioner s enti led for the relief a prayed for in the present writ Detition PERUSED THE RECORD:- DISCUS SION AND CO NCLUSION 4 Le a rn d onb i alf of the Detiti ner submits that the subiect iss ue in :he oresent co unsel a DDEA nd e case r s souarelv covered bv the order of this ( ourt dated O8.O9.2010 passed in W.P.No.243 77 of 2OO? reoorted in 2011(1 ) ALD, Paqe 234 as confirmed in ,,.No.782 of w 2010, dated 1O.O 6.2O13 and also order. datecl 19. 09.2017 Dasse d in W.P.No. 27217 of O17 reoo rted in 2l r18 2 ALD Paoe 2 82 and al o the order, dated 21 .04.20:I assed in W.P.No .2 57 of 2OL9 reported in 2O2O(4) ALI Pa

379. 5 Lea rn ed standin o c e DOeartn b :hatf of the respo n d ent No.4 submits that the qflevar ce f the Detitioner as ut-forth in the or sent Writ Peti IO! n had not been addressed to the resoond nts herei nas n date and therefore. the oetitioner cannot comDlain ina :ron on the oa rt of resoonde nts here in in considerinq the rieva nce of t he oetitioner a nd hence. the rel ief as o faVer for bv ( C I e on rt resent Wi re qranted 6 SN..I wP 32007 2.022 o Mandam uS can be issued aoainst the resoo dents d irecte hereunder as souoht for and the Detiti mav be to put-forth the petitio n e r's qrievance as put- forth in the presen t Writ Petition bv wav of a d eta iled reDrese ntation to the resoonden ts herein and upon rece Dtofthes dre resenta tio n the resoo ndents would consi der the sa me rn accordance to law. within a a reasona ble oeriod. 6, Learned counsel aooearino on behalf of the etitioner does not dispute the said submission made bv the learned sta n d ino counsel aooearino on behalf of the resDo n d ent No.4

7. The Aoex Court in th e iudqment reDorted in (2O2O) 1 SCC (L&S) in Prem Sinqh v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, t 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- 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 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 \.\ P i2007 2022 those employees who have worked for ten ye. r i or more should have been regularized. It would not bt: proper to regulate them for consideration of regularizatio I as others have been regularized, we direct thlt their :;, rvices be treated as a regular one. However, it is mad€ :iea r that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues oF I iffe re n ce in wages hacj they been continued ln SeTVrC l -eg u la rly before attaining the age of superannuation. Tn: , shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they ha,1 re ired from the reqular estab lish ment and the servrces r entered h ork-charo ed es abl ish ment shall bec rnted as ou Iifvino servtce for ou rDose of oension." de re b v ? I 8 The Apex c ou rt in the case of Dh arwad 'istrict P WD Literate Dailv Waq eEm lovees Association /s. State of Karnataka reported i n 1990( 2) SCC Paq e 396 rid prin ciple that the State should not kee ADerson in I .! mporarv or dhoc servi for lon I t<r Per ns as requla r one.

9. Para N o .53 of the of th iudo ent of thr Ao ex Court ln the S te of Ka rn ata k and other Vs. Um g devi, dated Li extracted hereunder:- "53. s e r n in S.V n 67 (t ) scR r19 '1. R.N. Naniunda DD scc 4O9l and B.N Na qaraian I1 979 (4 person sln d uly s been made an e Th :re mav be not i lleq a I rraYanaD pa l-1972 (t) scc 5071 vou lified I vacantoo sni hth ve ees have c nti nued to e of t2a L t I c 8 SN,J wP 32007 2022 work for ten vears or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The ouestion of reo ula rization of the services of such emolovees mav have to be considered on merits in the liqht of the principles settled bv this Court in the cases aboverefe rred to and in the lioht of this In that context, the Union of India. the iudqment. State Governments and their instrumentalities ld take steDs to reoularize as a one-time h s OU ln ed who have worked for ten vea rs or more in dulv sa nction d oosts but not u nder cover of ord rs of the r h ul recruitments are undertaken to fill those reqular vacant s nctioned Dosts t at reouire to be filled uo, in cases w here temoorarv em olovees or dailv waoers are bein now emoloved. The D rocess must be set in motion with in six months from th is date. .... f tribunals a he services o h irre ularl further en r a

10. The iudqment of the Aoex Court d ated 2O.12.2O24. reoorted in 2O24 LawSuit(SC 1209 in laoqo Anita and others v. Union of India and others, and the relevant oa raq r oh Nos.12, 1

24.26. 27 a nd 28 are extracted hereu nd er: "12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. 9 SN,J wP 32001 202) t_ I

13. The clai m bv the resoondents these were not reo ular oosts lac ks mer :, as the nature of the work oerformed b\ apoellants wasperennial and fundamen rl to t the functioninq of the offices. The rec - -r-rng nature of these duties necessitates :1eii- classification as regular posts, irrespective cf how their initial engagements were labelled. It i; also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of lrese same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inlr, rrent need for these services. This act of outsour:rng, which effectively replaced one set of workerr; with another further underscores that the wcr< in question was neither temporary nor occasionit . 24. The landmark judgment of the United I in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporatic r F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a per: example from the private sector, illustrating consequences of misclassifying employee I circumvent providing benefits. In this ( Microsoft classified certain workers as indeper contractors, thereby denying them emp I beneFits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the t Circuit determined that these workers wei-r fact, common-law employees and were entit ( the same benefits as regular employees. The ( noted that large Corporations have increa j adopted the practice of hiring tem p < employees or independent contractors as a n.t of avoiding payment of employee benefits, th. increasing their profits. This judgment unders( the principle that the nature of the performed, rather than the label assigned t: worker, should determine employment statu j the corresponding rights and benefits. hiqhliqhts the judiciarv' s role in recti t such miscla ssific ation s and ensurin q workers re eive faa r treat ent. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (sr-:ra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor e r .ries and ensure appointments adhered to constitu: tnal 197 ase/ )yee ,inth , in ou rt ng ly rarY )ans -eby It 4t!s :hat t0 SN,J wP i2007 2022 " irreg u la r" 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 cateqoricallv held that emolo ees rn irreqular aopointmen ts, who were enqa ed in dulv sanctioned Dosts and had se rved continuouslv for more than ten vears should be con sidered for reqularization as a one- time m ea su re. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is belng subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to ind iscriminately 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 expltcit overlooking the acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective aDDlication d istorts the iudo ment's soirit and DurD ose. effectivelv ita ln oa st emD lo ees who h e e indisoensable servrces over eano ntztn o ren d ered 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 internationa! standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to 1l SN,J wP 32007 2022 follow,, thereby contributing to the o r era ll betterirent of labour practices in the cor: ntry. 2a. In view of the above discussior and findings, the appeals are allowed. The imp r gned orders passed by the High Court and the Tr iiunal are set aside and the original application is al twed to the following extent: i. The termination orders 27 . 1 O.20lB are quashed ; , lated The a u ack on s However enti tled be nefits /back waqes for th e p thev have not worke d for but v be entitl ed to contin u itv of ser the sa id pe riod and the wouldbe co u nted for their r tir I ben fits sh lbe i rken ella n forthwith and :heir la ri forth r uith. d the apoell ants shall n gt be ul iarv g riod l ruld 1 ices !:me p ost- anY p

11. The Ju m nt of th A re orted in o2 INS 144 in " xCo rtd ed 31.O1 2025 RIP LA D I OTH Rv NAGAR NIGAM GHAZIAB A D", in parti cular, I re relev ant :l Dara Nos.15 to1 9 are extracted hereund er: so etim s "15. It is manife st that thEA ellanl slv rend ered heir se contin uou n t h -al ws Even if c the Em desoite di rection tnfere nce ork en lces o r er several th na decade. t ed u l records- 1r adverse la bour roll we f well-established r t2 SN.J wP i2007 2022 C iurisorudence. Indian la bour law stronqlv disfavors perpetual daily-waqe or contractual enqaqements in circu m sta nces where the work is oermanent in nature. Morallv and le ally, workers who fu lfil onqoinq municipal requirements vear after vear a ot be dismissed summaril as dis ensable particularly in the absence of a qenuine contractor aqreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of 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' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig econonry has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations l3 SN.J wP 32001 2022 labelled practices manifest in e olov es. ork r t I o\ /ed to employees. These several ways: . Misuse of "Tem rarv Labels: Emplov.ees enq aqed for work that is essenti,r ecu rrt n and inteqral to the functioninq of iI r institution are often as "terrl rorary" or "contractua1," even when their l oles m I rror Such m isclassifi cation de rives h diqnit v, securitv, and benefits at reo lar empl Yees are entitled to. desDit( oerforminq identacal tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary e rr frequently dismissed without cause or n, in the present case. This practice urr principles of natural justice and subjects state of constant insecurity, regardless or duration of their servace. . La: Prog ression : Temporary employees themselves excluded from opportun I developmenL, promotions, or incremen : They remain stagnant in their role:; systemic disparity between them and counterpads, despite their contribr_ equally significant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles lerformed by temporary employees, effectively repli::ing one set of exploited workers with another. Thi; prictice not only perpetuates exploitation but also ( emonstrates a deliberate eFfort to bypass the obligz tion to offer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefit:; Temporary employees are often denied fundame rtal benefits such as pension, provident fund, healt I insurance, and paid leave, even when their 1:t nure spans decades. This lack of social security st bjects them and their families to undue hardship, :specially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circu msta nces. " lployees are ,tice, as seen lermines the rryorkers to a )f the quality r of Ca reer often f ind es for skill rl pay ra ises. creating a -heir regular l ons being t4 '",J wP i2007 2012 St

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure oF parity in minimum pay. 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.

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 iheir services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were enqaqed in 'essential, perennial duties , these workers cannot be releqated to perDetual u ncertaintv. While concerns of municioal budqet and comoliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Emplover of statutorv oblioations ments. Indeed bureaucratic Iimitatio ns can nott rum o the ledt t mate riohts of work m en who have served continuouslv in de facto re ular roles for an extended oeri od. ate e uitable

18. The imp oned order of the Hiqh Court, to the extent the confine the Annella nt workmen to frrtu re 15 \ P i2007 202) SN,J enqaqemen t without cc ntin u itv or dailv-waqe meaninqful back waoes. is herebv set a ide with the f lowin d i recti ns:

1. V/orkrn en's th Section 6E Disputes Act, orders or ;ervices are rnt Workmen ice from the ;es, includ ing L The discontinuation of the Appell;i services, effected without compliance rr and Section 6N of the U.p. Industria 7947, is declared illegal. All comm u nications terminating their quashed. In consequence, the Appell shall be treated as continuing in ser,, date of their termination, for ail purp I seniority and continuity in service. IL The Respondent Employer shall -einstate the Appellant Workmen in their respecti /e posts (or- posts akin to the duties they previou:; y performed) within four weeks from the date of 1l is judgment Th eir entire oeriod of absence (frorr the date of termination until actu al reinst atem n co u nted for continui erv :e and all conseou ential benefits. such as )n orit eliqibili tv for oro motions, if a nv. III. Considering the length of service, he Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o of tlr : back wages from the date of their discontinuatit I until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent i: nployer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three nont'hs from the date of their reinstatement. ( ..t I IV. The Resoondent E er ts directed to tnttiate a fa ir nd tr nSDa rent r rocess for e ul la nt h A orkm r within stx months from the date of reinstat ! m nt, d ulv considerino the fact that thev havr o rformed perellrtlal m ciDal duties akin t( Der m anent In assessrnq oosts. reou lari::, rtion, Em lover shall not rmDose edr l, :ational or orocedura I crit ria retroactivel,l if such req ut rements were never to the Apoellan t Workmen or to similar v situated applit d ,_ 16 SN,J wP i2007 2022 reoular emplovees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessarv administrative processes to ensure these lonqtime emplovees are not indefinitely retained on dailv waqes contrarv to statutorv and equitable norms.

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 iudq ment reDorted in (2O17) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148, i State of Puniab and others vs Jaqiit Sinqh and others at Paras 54 and its sub-Daras f h aid ud ent observed "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 equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. ad hoc 2 aopointees are not aD ointed aoainst reoular sanctioned oosts and t eir servtces are availed the-S 'atc conti.nuouclw- vnith Govern ent or its instru mentalities for a sufficient notional hrea ks b t, l7 SN,J wP 12007 2022 t_ n o s 'iod e. of the of me r v wagers, ad hoc or contract,ual aooo intees sha ll I e entitled to without anv allowance son the assumDtion th zt work of Deren nial nature is a va ila ble and ha vtt q worked for uch on ut rble rioht ,s Created in such cateqorv ofp ersons, r clai I r ular atio e conside red seDaratelv in terms of leoallv D ermtssl i le cheme. (3) In the event, a clarm is made for min r after rn6rc than three years and tt,t completion of 10 years of continuous w( wager, ad hoc or contractual employee sh.,t arrears for a period ot three years and tw ) . 13. The iudo ment of th EADex co urt reDorte in 201O (9) scc 247 between: Stateof M.L.Kesarr andothers ln pa rticular, tum pay scale t months of .king, a daily be entitled to tonths." Ka rnataka an I a ras 4 t( 9 reads as c t- u nde r: 4

10. .200 SCC 1 rted in 20 6

4. The deciston ln State of Karnataka v Umadev i rlt4;- rendered I l that case a Constitution Bench of this Court hetd that appo r trylents made without following t he due process or the rLtt .; relating to appointment did not confer any ri'ght on the I Dointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, t; ation or re- regula r engagement nor make their service permanent, tnd the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Articlt t 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions f,r absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless t \ ) recruitment had been do ne in a regular manner, in 't rms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with he economic arrangement of its affairs by the State o r its ins t u mentalities, nor lend themselves to be instru ments to facilitate he bypassing of the constitutional and statuto ry mandates. Thi: : aourt further held that a temporary, con tractual, casual o,- t daily-wage employee does not have a Iegal right to be ma a1 permanent unless he had been appointe d in terms of the relev i nt rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constituti, t t. This Court however made one excep tion to the above po: i ion and the same is extracted below t8 SN,J wP 32007 2022 "53. One asnect needs to hc clarified. There ma vhe cases w here irreoular aDDointments (not illeoal ADD ointments) as exolained in S.V. Naravanaooa R 728 R,N. Nan unda 7 7 SCC 4091 and B.N, Naoaraian f7979 (4, SCC 5O7l and referred to in oara 75 above of dulv oualified Dersons in dulv sanctioned vacant posts miqht have been made and the emolovees have continued to work for ten veers or more but without intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The ouestion of resularization of the services of such emplovees mav have to be considered on merits in the liqht of the princioles settled b v this Court in the cases abo vereferred to and in the liaht of this iudoment. In that context, the Union ot India, the State c vernments and their i nstru mentalities should t,ake steos to reqularize as a one-time measure. the rvices of such irresularlv aDDointed. who have wor. ed for ten vears or more in dulv sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should furtheren SUre that reqular recruitments are qndertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned Dosts that require to be filled up, in cases where rs are bein now emoloved. The oro cess must be set in motion within six months from this date. .... m o "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 continueC 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. l9 SN.J wP 32007 2022 a dutv uDon tl L (iii) Umadevi cas concerned Government or in strumen tit to ta I e steps to reoularize the services of those irrequle r ly appointed emolo vees who had served for more thi n ten vears with out the b enefit or Drot.ection of anv int rtm o ers of or tribunals. as a one-tim e meas ) -e. Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure nt,t;t be set in motion withln stx m nths from the date r ' its dectston (rendered on 7O.4, 2006). 6. The term 'one-time measure, has to be un proper perspective. This would normally mean decision in Umadevi, each department or eac,1 should undertake a one-time exercise and pre;.. casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who hat.t for more than ten years wrthout the interventjo. tribunals and subject them to a process ve-, whether they are working against vacant posts,t, requisite qualification for the post and if so, , services. terstood in its that after the tstrumentality .e a list of all been working of courts and ication as to 'd possess the ,qu larize t heir ,_

7. At the end of six months from the date Umadevi, cases of several daity-wage/ad-hoc/cas were still pending before Courts. Conseot,, departments and instru menta lities did .not comr-. time regularization process. On the other Government departments or instru menta lities one-time exercise excluding several en",r, consideration either on the ground that their cascr in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circ,- employees who were entitled to be considered itr 53 of the decision in Umadevi, wi not lose rf t considered for regularization, merely because exercise was completed without considering tl because the six month period mentioned in pira has expired. The one-time exercise shoutd cor,s wage,/ad hoc/those employees who had put ir continuous service as on 10.4.2006 withou protection of any interim orders of courts or tti employer had held the one-time exercise in tern-,s Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of l|madevi, concerned should consider their cases also, as a t the one-time exercise. The one time exercise nri,l only when all the emptoyees who are entitled ta in terms of Para 53 of lJmadevi, are so considerec. = tr decision in tal employees ntly, several :nce the one- hand, some ,ndertook the toyees from were pending nstances, the terms of Pa ra ir rig ht to be the one-time eir cases, or '3 of Umadevi der all da ily- 10 years of availing the ,unals. If any of para 53 of nployees who the employer )ntinuation of be concluded te considered 20 SN,J wP 3)007 2022 t behind the tion in ara 53 Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure that those who have Dut in more than ten vears of continuous service without the protection of anv interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for reqularization in view of their lonq service. Second ,s to ensure that the deDa rtments/ instrumentalities do not DerDetuate the practice of emplovinq D ersons on dailv-waqe/ad- hoc/casual for lonq periods and then oeriod ica llv reqularize them on the qrosnd that thev have selved lor more than ten vears, therebv defeatinq the constitutional or statutory provisions reLatinq to recruitment and aDDointment. The true effect of the direction is that all Dersons who have worked for more than ten vears as on 70.4.2006 the date of decision in Umad I vtrilhortf fhe nv interim order of anv court or tribuna t, in vacant posts, possessinq theLequisite oualification. are entitled to be considered for reqularization. The fact that the emDlover has not undertaken such exercise of reqularization within six months of the d.ec,ston tn Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken onlv in reqard to a limited few, will not disentitle such nsidered for reoularization emolovees. the riqht to be in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure,

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

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of lJmadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/ad - hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 5 j 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 shall 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 fulfill the requirements of 2 SN,J wP 32007 2022 Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be -egularised. If the employees who have completed ten years : ervice do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed I ),- the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be onsidered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appee t is disposed of accord ing ly . L4. In the iudqment of the Aoex Court in \lihal Sinqh and others v. State of Puniab reoorted in (2313) 14 SCC :osal their 65, the Supreme Court considered the case oi absorption of Special Police Officers apfointed by the !; ate, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose dis services were made available. It held that tlr that wages were paid by the Bank did not appellants 'employees' of those Banks appointment was made by the State and control vested with the State. It held that the c cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre i exclusively within the authority of the Stato reation of a ; a matter but if the : mere fact since the render the J iscip lin a ry se to make State did not choose to create a cadre but chc appointments of persons creating relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also_ acceDt the defen and so there was iustification for the Stal:r ' to utilise services of larqe number of oeopte like the a11 )ellants for re no sa n c': oned refused to contractual that ther e rrve 22 SN,J wP 32007 2022 decades. It held that "sanct o n ed oosts do not fall from heaven" and that the State has to create them bv a conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment of need. Referrinq to Umadevi, it held that the apoellants before them were not arbi tra rilv chosen. their initial aoDointment was not an 'irre o ular'a ooointment as it had been made in accordance with the sta utorv orocedure t prescribed under the Police Act, 1861, and the State cannot be heard to sav that the a re not entitled to be absorbed into the services of the State on Dermanent basis as, accordinq to it, their aooointments were purely m r r nd not a ainst an n ned osts create b the Stat It was held that the iudqment in Umadevi cannot become a lice nce for exoloitation bv the State and its instrumentalitie s and neither the Government of Puniab nor those oublic sector B anks can contin ue such a oractice inconsistent with their obliqation to f nction in accordance with th e Con stitution.

15. The iudoment of the ADEx Cou rt reDorte in 2O15 scc Online SC 17 9 7 betwee B.S rt nivasul u and others v Nellore Municioal Cor Dor ReI] .b its Comm sroner Netlore District. Andhra Pradesh and others, in particular paras 7 and 8 reads as under: SN,J wP 12007 2022 We find it difficult to acceDt the reasoninq t dooted by, the (7) ruSl1 ep,qrt. The righr 9_LI!E- qppellotls lp scc{ tegal?1ZaqgJ1 flov,ts fron', iIe G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.199,1. The appelia nt have been in selvice of the first respondent not o, Iy prior to the issuance of the said G.O but even subsequen t i ) the issue of G.O. tl! todav. The respondent Municipality bei, g a statutory body is oblrged by the G.a. 212(supra). Insplt= of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for ?t nost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellant:; and continued to extract work from the appellants.

8. In the circumstances, refusing the benefl mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appella.. the Tribunal belatedly,, in our opinion, is not j,. circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifyinq rl appeal by directing that the appellants' services with effect from the date of their completing I continuous service as was laid down by this (c Collector/Cha irperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh 6 SCC 4BO" of the a bove s a pproached ;!:ified. In the e order under te regula rised teir five year irt in District )rs. 2409 (B)

16. In Amark ant Rai v State of Bihar reporlr:d (2015) 8 cc 265 reme Court held that 'T13 objective behind the exception carved out in this case u/ rs to permit regularization of such appointment, which it.e irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointmentr; which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure ;ecurity of emolovment of those oersons who had servq I the State Gove rn ent and their instrumentalities for mr re than ten vea rs" In that se, em D lo ee was workinq I'rr.. 29 vea rs. aA SN,J wP 32007 2022 Th is deci sion aDDroves earlier vrew expressed in M.L.Kesari extracted above. L7. In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasad reported in ( 20L4) 7 SCC 223 similar view was taken bv the Suoreme C ou rt and it was held as follows : In view of the aateooric.al findin 17 of fact on "41. relevant contentious issue that the resDondent emDlovees in their service for more than 7O vears have continu€il erefore, the leqal princiole laid down b contin uouslv this Court in Umadevi case (S tate of Karnataka v Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 7 2006 scc L&S) 73) at Dara 53 souarelv Hiqh Court has riqhtlv held that the respondent led for the relief, the same cannot be emolovees are en ln te to the resent cases. The DiVI red with bv this Court." nBI I

18. The Judgment of this Court dated (J6.t2.2O22 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 10.10.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated

09.O8.2024 in SLP No.32847 ot 2O24.

19. The iudqment of the ADex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others reported 25 SN,J wP 32007 2022 in AIR 202O Suoreme Court 3969 and in pa1:icular oara Nos.lOO and 101 held as follows: "100. The High Courts exercising their jurr ; iiction under nly have the Arlicle 225 of the Constitution oF India. noi r power to ssue a rvrit oi mandamus or ir: t te ,lature of mandamus, but ar lrcise such power, where the Government or a outrl ic aut ho ritv has failed to exercise or has wronql'' exercised discretion conferred uoon it bv a statute _ lr a rule, or a policv decision of the Government or l'.; s exercised such discretion mala fide, or ori irrelevant consideration.

101. In all such cases, the High Court must t sue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel p: -formance in an appropriate and lawful manner oF t i e discretion conferred upon the Government or a public a.l hority."

20. The Division Bench of this Court in i Judqment dated 10.O .2013 passed i n W.A.Nos.782 of 2( 1O and 854 of 2O12 while upholdinq the Jud ment datecl 08.O9.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.N< 48 of 2OO8 I observed as und er:- "Further, it ls manifest from the material on r( services of the similarly placed persons who apprr Courts were regularized. The appellant-Corporati various office ordersT'circulars dated 20.12.1989 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.20a9 for re 1 casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen tl T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice b / or workman. As can be seen from the factual ; cases on hand, engaging the respondents for sl continuous period of time on casuai basis is noti labour practice attracting the provisions of Sect ( ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying or of the Apex Court, rightly held that the responder to regularlzation as directed in the impugneo ( cord that the ached the law ,n a lso issued LL.09.t992, ularizatlon of rt Section 25- any employer :ena rio of the :h a long and ing but unfair r 25-T of the the decis ions -s are en titled rders, as the 26 SN,J wP 32001 2022 learned single Judge considered all the aspects ot the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals."

21. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment dated 19.O9.2OL7 oassed in W.P.No.272 L7 of 2OL7 reported in 2018 2 A LD Daoe 282 at Dara 16 an ) d 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 IJma 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 bso rptio n/reg u la riza tion 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.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 ot the States where State enactments banning reg u la rlzatio n/a bsorption exist. Therefore , Act 2 0f 1994 100 and G.O. Ms. No .212, dated 22.4.L994 do not whittle down the width and the ini's ca the d tre ton s issued bw fhe Su ore e Court in Para 53 of its iudoment in Uma D evi's resoonden ts to take shelter under Act 2 of and G.O. Ms. No.212. dated 22.4,L9 94. to denv requlariza tion to have. admittedlv. satisf ied the the o in Man ula Ba su nrr \ T+ ic itioners. wh idd wn in Par ud m nt in .53 of h +h refo ra IE cto t et h u ra t Devi s case (supra).

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 2l '6'2017, in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside ith the direction to the and the wri t net ition ts al o wed w 21 SN,J wP 32007 1022 ectors and a resoondents to consider reqularisation of tll. services of the Detitioners a oainst the existino vacan( ies of Work ir satisfving m the criteria laid down in Para No,53 of thr iudoment in Uma Devi's case (suora ). This orocess must e completed within two months from the date of receio of a copv of this order." I J :

22. The Division Bench of this Court in i1:r Judqment dated 21.04.2020 oassed in I.A.N os.1 of 2O20 n 1 of 2O19 and w.P. No.23O57 of 2019 reoo ed in 2O2O 1)ALD Daqe 379 at Daras 45, 48 a nd para 50 observed as u rder:- 1 l I the lst resDon xercise of oreoarino the list of dailv o "45. There is no drspule that petitioners have br: n workrng on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost 30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum ire-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously !,( rking without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date 48. rt is not known wh t has no followed the decision in U ma Devi's cast i (supra), as exola ined in M.L. Kesart s case uora) and n dertaken a one-time emolovees who had wo rked for more than t without th tntervention of the C ourts and T 'i runals as on 10.4.2006 and subiect them to a Drocess ver i ication as to whether oosts and possess requisite qu fications for the oost ; and if so reoularize t er r servtces. 50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; .re impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the lst respo. lent rejecting the cases of petitioners For regularization of selices on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary a I I violattve of Articles 74, 16 and 21 of the Constitution ( f India; the resDon den s are directed to reo Iarize on o | 3-time basis petitioners' services from the date each of t;1 ]o etitio n ers comDlete 10 years of service on dailv wa g ls from the ,_ shall not be e .ise shall be I he date l ,f receiDt of ointm n f The weeks f rom t thev are workino ainst vacar ntitle m n done within two ( coDv of the order. " 2 ) f I B € 10 SN,J wP 32007 2022

23. This ourt ooines that in the Dresent case, the resD ondents fa iled to disch rqe their dutv in examrnrnq the request of the petitioner for req u la rization of Deti tioner's services who is workinq as full time sweeper and further to consider his reouest o treat the temDorarv service of the petitioner in the I ast qrade post of full time sweeoer a s reqular one for all ourooses bv o rantino last o rade oa with oeriod ical increment revis ed from time to tim e from the date of a DD ointment of the Detitioner, in accord ance to law.

24. This Court ooines that petitioner is entitled for co nsi dera tio n of oetitioner's case for orant of the relief as oraved for in the oresent Writ Petition in view of the observatio ns of the Aoex Court in various iudoments ( referred to and extract ed above) and the vi w of the Division Bench of this Court in the Jud o ments referred to and extracted above.

25. Takinq into co n s ide ratio n: - a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. 29 SN,J wP 3200, 2022 b) The submissions made by the learr ed counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and tearr ed standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 c) The observations of the Apex Court. in lhe various judgments (referred to and extracted above and again enlisted below: i)(2o2o) l scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC pase 396 (iii) 2O2s rNSc 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 1209 (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 201O(9) ScC 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Ontine SC 1-797 (ix) (2o1s) I scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 Scc223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of ZOZ4 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, page234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O20(a)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this (1, rurt dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O , rnd 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dated )8.O9.201O passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2007 and C.C.No.,t8 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), 30 SN,J wP _32001 2022 e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated L9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 ol 2O17 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 ot 2O2O in 1of 2O19 and W.P.No.23057 ot 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 oetitioner is directed to out-forth the claim of the petitioner for reo ular lzation of Detitioner's services, and also the claim of the oetitioner to treat the temoorarv services of the etitioner in the las r f r r r n for all purposes bv qrantinq last qrade pav with periodical increments revised from time to time from the date of aooointment of th e Detitioner and all consequential benefits, dulv enclosinq all the relevant documents in supoort of petitioner's case as put-forth in the present writ oetitio n within a oeriod of one (O1) week from the date of receiot of coov of the order and the respondents shal! examine and consider the same in accordance to 31 SN,J wP 3200t 2022 law, in confo rm itv with orincioles of naturl iu p rovid i nq an ooDort u n itv of oersonal petitioner I inq to the in terms of orders passed bv lle Su reme stice bv Court in Uma Devi's ca se reported in 2006(4) ;CC Paqe 1, the iudqment passed in W.P.No.24377 of IOOT dated 08.09.2010 reported in 2O11 ALD, Paqe 234 and as (1) eonfirmed in W.4.No.782 of 201O dated 1O.(l i.2O1 also as per Division Bench Judqment of this _ lourt dated 19.O9.2017 passed in W.P.N o.2 72L7 of 2OO7 reoorted in 20LA( 2)ALD Da qe 242 a nd also the Divi ion Bench Judo ent of this Cou rt dated 2L.O4.2O2( passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2 O2O in 1 of 2O1 9 in W.P.No.2 3(.57 of 2OL9 reDo rted in 2O2O(4) ALD oaoe 379 which tr d attained fina I ity, within a period of four (O4) weeks frr m th date of receiot of a coov of this ord e r, ulv aki con sid eration the observatio n s and the law l: d down bv the Aoex Court in the various iudoments (ref l.red to and extracted above). an tn oarticular, oara N< .53 of the iudom ent of th Aoex Court in the case f State of Karnataka v. U Devi and dulv commt nicate the ion to th ral lbeno e Detitioner, However, I order a 32 SN,J wP 32007 2022 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall sta nd closed. SD/- T.SREENIVAS REDDY ASSTSTANT REGISTRAB---_-) To //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER One fair copy to the HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SU (For Her LadYshiP's Kind Perusa r) PALLI NANDA

1. 11 L,R. Copies. 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia' IVlinistry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Coutt Buildings, Hyderabad

4. The Principal Secretary, Panchayathral Department, State of Telangana' Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

5. The Principal Secretary to Government, Education Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat Hyderabad. 6, The Principal Secretary, Finance & Planning Department, State of Telangana, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

7. .The Chief Executive officer, Zilla Pra.ja Parishad, Siddipet District, ZPP Siddipet(TS). g. The tvlandal Parishad Development officer cum Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Komaravelli lt4andal, Siddipet District. 9. One CC to SRI CH. GANESH, Advocate [OPUC] 1o.Two CCs to GP for Services-ll, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

11.One CC to SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, S.C. for ZPP [OPUC]

12.Two CD CoPies IMP TKS .-*#- HIGH COURT DA-l ED:2010812025 ORDER WP.Nr ) 32007 of 2022 F o() a. t H I g 2 t?) * f -,t-: ALLOWING THE \IIRIT PETITION WI' HOUT COSTS el b \{r 10 \ r\>t

the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents herein to pay the salary of full time sweeper to the petitioner. on par with his counterparts full time sweepers working in the Panchayat Schools in Karimnagar and other district as per Proceedings No. 12771A812015, dated: 07.10.2015 and Proc.No.A3i1 7312019, dt.25.10.2021 in Iast grade time scale revised from time to time along with periodical increments as per PRC scales of 2O15 & 2020. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH. GANESH Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 3: SMT. M. SHALINI, GP FOR SERVICES.II Counsel for the Respondents No.4 & 5: SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, S.C. FOR ZPP The Court made the following: ORDER J SN,J \\'P 3200 t' 2022 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI t\r,NDA w TPETITIO NNo.3200 7 0F 20.lr= ORDER Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel i ppearing on behalf of the petitioner, Smt. M.Sha iri, learned Government pleader for Services_Il appearrr g on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 and Sri pradeep I eddy Katta, learned Standing Counset appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5.

2.7 e a ou rt ;eekinq the pra ver aSU nder: ".,.to issue an order or direction more pat.t the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare thrl Respondents in not treating the services of petiti: one in last grade post from date oF appointment . denying to pay legitimate living wages for actually time sweeper for all purposes on par with regulal grade employees in respondent department as Ir{ committee report of 1't respondent dt.l7.O-l .Iggt Articles 74, 76, 2t, 39 (d), 43 & 300 (A) of our 1 not implementing Section 13 and 1S of Minimur 1948 and provisions of Equal Remuneration Act, l1 to call for the official records releasing serv c seniority and sanctioned posts of last grade post schools along with implementation oF High pou.( report of Government dated L7.O7.1994 t ) cularly one in action of the rer as regular petitioner by rcrking as full engaged last r High power n violation of )rstitution by Wages Act, 76 and pra ys r conditions, ' in ZPP|MPP r Committee direct the 4 SN.J wP 32007 2022 Respondents herein to treat the services of the petitioner as regular one in last grade post from the date of initial appointment of petitioner 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 rn W.P.No.33936 of 2011 and Batch Cases dated 02.05.2018 (2020 (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) followed by decision of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in w.A.No.4B3 of 2021 dated 05.08.2021 based on principle lald by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.1254 of 2018 Apex Court, dated 23.03.2018 to reckon contingent services of petitioner for computation of qualifying service lo grant of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits on his retirement by releasing all consequential monetary beneflts in the last grade post on par with regularly engaged last grade employees of the respondent departments, along with periodical increments, as revised from tlme to time with 100% 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 19.02.2019 (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by applying the aforesaid principles and decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court & Division Benches under Article 141 of our Constifution by this Hon'ble Court in the case of petitioner and pass..."

3. Learned counsel aoDearan o on behalf of the etitioner lacin reliance on the avermen h fidavit filed in f sent wri erta i n in h rvtces Detitioner with the resDond herein for more than a ) SN,J \\ t, i2007 2022 d ecade contends that the oetitioner s enti led for the relief a prayed for in the present writ Detition PERUSED THE RECORD:- DISCUS SION AND CO NCLUSION 4 Le a rn d onb i alf of the Detiti ner submits that the subiect iss ue in :he oresent co unsel a DDEA nd e case r s souarelv covered bv the order of this ( ourt dated O8.O9.2010 passed in W.P.No.243 77 of 2OO? reoorted in 2011(1 ) ALD, Paqe 234 as confirmed in ,,.No.782 of w 2010, dated 1O.O 6.2O13 and also order. datecl 19. 09.2017 Dasse d in W.P.No. 27217 of O17 reoo rted in 2l r18 2 ALD Paoe 2 82 and al o the order, dated 21 .04.20:I assed in W.P.No .2 57 of 2OL9 reported in 2O2O(4) ALI Pa

379. 5 Lea rn ed standin o c e DOeartn b :hatf of the respo n d ent No.4 submits that the qflevar ce f the Detitioner as ut-forth in the or sent Writ Peti IO! n had not been addressed to the resoond nts herei nas n date and therefore. the oetitioner cannot comDlain ina :ron on the oa rt of resoonde nts here in in considerinq the rieva nce of t he oetitioner a nd hence. the rel ief as o faVer for bv ( C I e on rt resent Wi re qranted 6 SN..I wP 32007 2.022 o Mandam uS can be issued aoainst the resoo dents d irecte hereunder as souoht for and the Detiti mav be to put-forth the petitio n e r's qrievance as put- forth in the presen t Writ Petition bv wav of a d eta iled reDrese ntation to the resoonden ts herein and upon rece Dtofthes dre resenta tio n the resoo ndents would consi der the sa me rn accordance to law. within a a reasona ble oeriod. 6, Learned counsel aooearino on behalf of the etitioner does not dispute the said submission made bv the learned sta n d ino counsel aooearino on behalf of the resDo n d ent No.4

7. The Aoex Court in th e iudqment reDorted in (2O2O) 1 SCC (L&S) in Prem Sinqh v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, t 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- 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 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 \.\ P i2007 2022 those employees who have worked for ten ye. r i or more should have been regularized. It would not bt: proper to regulate them for consideration of regularizatio I as others have been regularized, we direct thlt their :;, rvices be treated as a regular one. However, it is mad€ :iea r that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues oF I iffe re n ce in wages hacj they been continued ln SeTVrC l -eg u la rly before attaining the age of superannuation. Tn: , shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they ha,1 re ired from the reqular estab lish ment and the servrces r entered h ork-charo ed es abl ish ment shall bec rnted as ou Iifvino servtce for ou rDose of oension." de re b v ? I 8 The Apex c ou rt in the case of Dh arwad 'istrict P WD Literate Dailv Waq eEm lovees Association /s. State of Karnataka reported i n 1990( 2) SCC Paq e 396 rid prin ciple that the State should not kee ADerson in I .! mporarv or dhoc servi for lon I t<r Per ns as requla r one.

9. Para N o .53 of the of th iudo ent of thr Ao ex Court ln the S te of Ka rn ata k and other Vs. Um g devi, dated Li extracted hereunder:- "53. s e r n in S.V n 67 (t ) scR r19 '1. R.N. Naniunda DD scc 4O9l and B.N Na qaraian I1 979 (4 person sln d uly s been made an e Th :re mav be not i lleq a I rraYanaD pa l-1972 (t) scc 5071 vou lified I vacantoo sni hth ve ees have c nti nued to e of t2a L t I c 8 SN,J wP 32007 2022 work for ten vears or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The ouestion of reo ula rization of the services of such emolovees mav have to be considered on merits in the liqht of the principles settled bv this Court in the cases aboverefe rred to and in the lioht of this In that context, the Union of India. the iudqment. State Governments and their instrumentalities ld take steDs to reoularize as a one-time h s OU ln ed who have worked for ten vea rs or more in dulv sa nction d oosts but not u nder cover of ord rs of the r h ul recruitments are undertaken to fill those reqular vacant s nctioned Dosts t at reouire to be filled uo, in cases w here temoorarv em olovees or dailv waoers are bein now emoloved. The D rocess must be set in motion with in six months from th is date. .... f tribunals a he services o h irre ularl further en r a

10. The iudqment of the Aoex Court d ated 2O.12.2O24. reoorted in 2O24 LawSuit(SC 1209 in laoqo Anita and others v. Union of India and others, and the relevant oa raq r oh Nos.12, 1

24.26. 27 a nd 28 are extracted hereu nd er: "12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work. 9 SN,J wP 32001 202) t_ I

13. The clai m bv the resoondents these were not reo ular oosts lac ks mer :, as the nature of the work oerformed b\ apoellants wasperennial and fundamen rl to t the functioninq of the offices. The rec - -r-rng nature of these duties necessitates :1eii- classification as regular posts, irrespective cf how their initial engagements were labelled. It i; also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of lrese same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inlr, rrent need for these services. This act of outsour:rng, which effectively replaced one set of workerr; with another further underscores that the wcr< in question was neither temporary nor occasionit . 24. The landmark judgment of the United I in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporatic r F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a per: example from the private sector, illustrating consequences of misclassifying employee I circumvent providing benefits. In this ( Microsoft classified certain workers as indeper contractors, thereby denying them emp I beneFits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the t Circuit determined that these workers wei-r fact, common-law employees and were entit ( the same benefits as regular employees. The ( noted that large Corporations have increa j adopted the practice of hiring tem p < employees or independent contractors as a n.t of avoiding payment of employee benefits, th. increasing their profits. This judgment unders( the principle that the nature of the performed, rather than the label assigned t: worker, should determine employment statu j the corresponding rights and benefits. hiqhliqhts the judiciarv' s role in recti t such miscla ssific ation s and ensurin q workers re eive faa r treat ent. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (sr-:ra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor e r .ries and ensure appointments adhered to constitu: tnal 197 ase/ )yee ,inth , in ou rt ng ly rarY )ans -eby It 4t!s :hat t0 SN,J wP i2007 2022 " irreg u la r" 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 cateqoricallv held that emolo ees rn irreqular aopointmen ts, who were enqa ed in dulv sanctioned Dosts and had se rved continuouslv for more than ten vears should be con sidered for reqularization as a one- time m ea su re. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is belng subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to ind iscriminately 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 expltcit overlooking the acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective aDDlication d istorts the iudo ment's soirit and DurD ose. effectivelv ita ln oa st emD lo ees who h e e indisoensable servrces over eano ntztn o ren d ered 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 internationa! standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to 1l SN,J wP 32007 2022 follow,, thereby contributing to the o r era ll betterirent of labour practices in the cor: ntry. 2a. In view of the above discussior and findings, the appeals are allowed. The imp r gned orders passed by the High Court and the Tr iiunal are set aside and the original application is al twed to the following extent: i. The termination orders 27 . 1 O.20lB are quashed ; , lated The a u ack on s However enti tled be nefits /back waqes for th e p thev have not worke d for but v be entitl ed to contin u itv of ser the sa id pe riod and the wouldbe co u nted for their r tir I ben fits sh lbe i rken ella n forthwith and :heir la ri forth r uith. d the apoell ants shall n gt be ul iarv g riod l ruld 1 ices !:me p ost- anY p

11. The Ju m nt of th A re orted in o2 INS 144 in " xCo rtd ed 31.O1 2025 RIP LA D I OTH Rv NAGAR NIGAM GHAZIAB A D", in parti cular, I re relev ant :l Dara Nos.15 to1 9 are extracted hereund er: so etim s "15. It is manife st that thEA ellanl slv rend ered heir se contin uou n t h -al ws Even if c the Em desoite di rection tnfere nce ork en lces o r er several th na decade. t ed u l records- 1r adverse la bour roll we f well-established r t2 SN.J wP i2007 2022 C iurisorudence. Indian la bour law stronqlv disfavors perpetual daily-waqe or contractual enqaqements in circu m sta nces where the work is oermanent in nature. Morallv and le ally, workers who fu lfil onqoinq municipal requirements vear after vear a ot be dismissed summaril as dis ensable particularly in the absence of a qenuine contractor aqreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgement of this court in Jaggo v. Union of 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' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig econonry has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations l3 SN.J wP 32001 2022 labelled practices manifest in e olov es. ork r t I o\ /ed to employees. These several ways: . Misuse of "Tem rarv Labels: Emplov.ees enq aqed for work that is essenti,r ecu rrt n and inteqral to the functioninq of iI r institution are often as "terrl rorary" or "contractua1," even when their l oles m I rror Such m isclassifi cation de rives h diqnit v, securitv, and benefits at reo lar empl Yees are entitled to. desDit( oerforminq identacal tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary e rr frequently dismissed without cause or n, in the present case. This practice urr principles of natural justice and subjects state of constant insecurity, regardless or duration of their servace. . La: Prog ression : Temporary employees themselves excluded from opportun I developmenL, promotions, or incremen : They remain stagnant in their role:; systemic disparity between them and counterpads, despite their contribr_ equally significant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles lerformed by temporary employees, effectively repli::ing one set of exploited workers with another. Thi; prictice not only perpetuates exploitation but also ( emonstrates a deliberate eFfort to bypass the obligz tion to offer regular employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefit:; Temporary employees are often denied fundame rtal benefits such as pension, provident fund, healt I insurance, and paid leave, even when their 1:t nure spans decades. This lack of social security st bjects them and their families to undue hardship, :specially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circu msta nces. " lployees are ,tice, as seen lermines the rryorkers to a )f the quality r of Ca reer often f ind es for skill rl pay ra ises. creating a -heir regular l ons being t4 '",J wP i2007 2012 St

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure oF parity in minimum pay. 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.

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 iheir services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that they were enqaqed in 'essential, perennial duties , these workers cannot be releqated to perDetual u ncertaintv. While concerns of municioal budqet and comoliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Emplover of statutorv oblioations ments. Indeed bureaucratic Iimitatio ns can nott rum o the ledt t mate riohts of work m en who have served continuouslv in de facto re ular roles for an extended oeri od. ate e uitable

18. The imp oned order of the Hiqh Court, to the extent the confine the Annella nt workmen to frrtu re 15 \ P i2007 202) SN,J enqaqemen t without cc ntin u itv or dailv-waqe meaninqful back waoes. is herebv set a ide with the f lowin d i recti ns:

1. V/orkrn en's th Section 6E Disputes Act, orders or ;ervices are rnt Workmen ice from the ;es, includ ing L The discontinuation of the Appell;i services, effected without compliance rr and Section 6N of the U.p. Industria 7947, is declared illegal. All comm u nications terminating their quashed. In consequence, the Appell shall be treated as continuing in ser,, date of their termination, for ail purp I seniority and continuity in service. IL The Respondent Employer shall -einstate the Appellant Workmen in their respecti /e posts (or- posts akin to the duties they previou:; y performed) within four weeks from the date of 1l is judgment Th eir entire oeriod of absence (frorr the date of termination until actu al reinst atem n co u nted for continui erv :e and all conseou ential benefits. such as )n orit eliqibili tv for oro motions, if a nv. III. Considering the length of service, he Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o of tlr : back wages from the date of their discontinuatit I until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent i: nployer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three nont'hs from the date of their reinstatement. ( ..t I IV. The Resoondent E er ts directed to tnttiate a fa ir nd tr nSDa rent r rocess for e ul la nt h A orkm r within stx months from the date of reinstat ! m nt, d ulv considerino the fact that thev havr o rformed perellrtlal m ciDal duties akin t( Der m anent In assessrnq oosts. reou lari::, rtion, Em lover shall not rmDose edr l, :ational or orocedura I crit ria retroactivel,l if such req ut rements were never to the Apoellan t Workmen or to similar v situated applit d ,_ 16 SN,J wP i2007 2022 reoular emplovees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are required, the Respondent Employer shall expedite all necessarv administrative processes to ensure these lonqtime emplovees are not indefinitely retained on dailv waqes contrarv to statutorv and equitable norms.

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 iudq ment reDorted in (2O17) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148, i State of Puniab and others vs Jaqiit Sinqh and others at Paras 54 and its sub-Daras f h aid ud ent observed "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 equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. ad hoc 2 aopointees are not aD ointed aoainst reoular sanctioned oosts and t eir servtces are availed the-S 'atc conti.nuouclw- vnith Govern ent or its instru mentalities for a sufficient notional hrea ks b t, l7 SN,J wP 12007 2022 t_ n o s 'iod e. of the of me r v wagers, ad hoc or contract,ual aooo intees sha ll I e entitled to without anv allowance son the assumDtion th zt work of Deren nial nature is a va ila ble and ha vtt q worked for uch on ut rble rioht ,s Created in such cateqorv ofp ersons, r clai I r ular atio e conside red seDaratelv in terms of leoallv D ermtssl i le cheme. (3) In the event, a clarm is made for min r after rn6rc than three years and tt,t completion of 10 years of continuous w( wager, ad hoc or contractual employee sh.,t arrears for a period ot three years and tw ) . 13. The iudo ment of th EADex co urt reDorte in 201O (9) scc 247 between: Stateof M.L.Kesarr andothers ln pa rticular, tum pay scale t months of .king, a daily be entitled to tonths." Ka rnataka an I a ras 4 t( 9 reads as c t- u nde r: 4

10. .200 SCC 1 rted in 20 6

4. The deciston ln State of Karnataka v Umadev i rlt4;- rendered I l that case a Constitution Bench of this Court hetd that appo r trylents made without following t he due process or the rLtt .; relating to appointment did not confer any ri'ght on the I Dointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, t; ation or re- regula r engagement nor make their service permanent, tnd the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Articlt t 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions f,r absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless t \ ) recruitment had been do ne in a regular manner, in 't rms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with he economic arrangement of its affairs by the State o r its ins t u mentalities, nor lend themselves to be instru ments to facilitate he bypassing of the constitutional and statuto ry mandates. Thi: : aourt further held that a temporary, con tractual, casual o,- t daily-wage employee does not have a Iegal right to be ma a1 permanent unless he had been appointe d in terms of the relev i nt rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constituti, t t. This Court however made one excep tion to the above po: i ion and the same is extracted below t8 SN,J wP 32007 2022 "53. One asnect needs to hc clarified. There ma vhe cases w here irreoular aDDointments (not illeoal ADD ointments) as exolained in S.V. Naravanaooa R 728 R,N. Nan unda 7 7 SCC 4091 and B.N, Naoaraian f7979 (4, SCC 5O7l and referred to in oara 75 above of dulv oualified Dersons in dulv sanctioned vacant posts miqht have been made and the emolovees have continued to work for ten veers or more but without intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The ouestion of resularization of the services of such emplovees mav have to be considered on merits in the liqht of the princioles settled b v this Court in the cases abo vereferred to and in the liaht of this iudoment. In that context, the Union ot India, the State c vernments and their i nstru mentalities should t,ake steos to reqularize as a one-time measure. the rvices of such irresularlv aDDointed. who have wor. ed for ten vears or more in dulv sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should furtheren SUre that reqular recruitments are qndertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned Dosts that require to be filled up, in cases where rs are bein now emoloved. The oro cess must be set in motion within six months from this date. .... m o "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 continueC 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. l9 SN.J wP 32007 2022 a dutv uDon tl L (iii) Umadevi cas concerned Government or in strumen tit to ta I e steps to reoularize the services of those irrequle r ly appointed emolo vees who had served for more thi n ten vears with out the b enefit or Drot.ection of anv int rtm o ers of or tribunals. as a one-tim e meas ) -e. Umadevi, directed that such one-time measure nt,t;t be set in motion withln stx m nths from the date r ' its dectston (rendered on 7O.4, 2006). 6. The term 'one-time measure, has to be un proper perspective. This would normally mean decision in Umadevi, each department or eac,1 should undertake a one-time exercise and pre;.. casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who hat.t for more than ten years wrthout the interventjo. tribunals and subject them to a process ve-, whether they are working against vacant posts,t, requisite qualification for the post and if so, , services. terstood in its that after the tstrumentality .e a list of all been working of courts and ication as to 'd possess the ,qu larize t heir ,_

7. At the end of six months from the date Umadevi, cases of several daity-wage/ad-hoc/cas were still pending before Courts. Conseot,, departments and instru menta lities did .not comr-. time regularization process. On the other Government departments or instru menta lities one-time exercise excluding several en",r, consideration either on the ground that their cascr in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circ,- employees who were entitled to be considered itr 53 of the decision in Umadevi, wi not lose rf t considered for regularization, merely because exercise was completed without considering tl because the six month period mentioned in pira has expired. The one-time exercise shoutd cor,s wage,/ad hoc/those employees who had put ir continuous service as on 10.4.2006 withou protection of any interim orders of courts or tti employer had held the one-time exercise in tern-,s Umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of l|madevi, concerned should consider their cases also, as a t the one-time exercise. The one time exercise nri,l only when all the emptoyees who are entitled ta in terms of Para 53 of lJmadevi, are so considerec. = tr decision in tal employees ntly, several :nce the one- hand, some ,ndertook the toyees from were pending nstances, the terms of Pa ra ir rig ht to be the one-time eir cases, or '3 of Umadevi der all da ily- 10 years of availing the ,unals. If any of para 53 of nployees who the employer )ntinuation of be concluded te considered 20 SN,J wP 3)007 2022 t behind the tion in ara 53 Umadevi is two- fold. First is to ensure that those who have Dut in more than ten vears of continuous service without the protection of anv interim orders of courts or tribunals, before the date of decision in Umadevi was rendered, are considered for reqularization in view of their lonq service. Second ,s to ensure that the deDa rtments/ instrumentalities do not DerDetuate the practice of emplovinq D ersons on dailv-waqe/ad- hoc/casual for lonq periods and then oeriod ica llv reqularize them on the qrosnd that thev have selved lor more than ten vears, therebv defeatinq the constitutional or statutory provisions reLatinq to recruitment and aDDointment. The true effect of the direction is that all Dersons who have worked for more than ten vears as on 70.4.2006 the date of decision in Umad I vtrilhortf fhe nv interim order of anv court or tribuna t, in vacant posts, possessinq theLequisite oualification. are entitled to be considered for reqularization. The fact that the emDlover has not undertaken such exercise of reqularization within six months of the d.ec,ston tn Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken onlv in reqard to a limited few, will not disentitle such nsidered for reoularization emolovees. the riqht to be in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure,

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

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of lJmadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/ad - hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 5 j 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 shall 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 fulfill the requirements of 2 SN,J wP 32007 2022 Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be -egularised. If the employees who have completed ten years : ervice do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed I ),- the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be onsidered for regularization in suitable lower posts. This appee t is disposed of accord ing ly . L4. In the iudqment of the Aoex Court in \lihal Sinqh and others v. State of Puniab reoorted in (2313) 14 SCC :osal their 65, the Supreme Court considered the case oi absorption of Special Police Officers apfointed by the !; ate, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose dis services were made available. It held that tlr that wages were paid by the Bank did not appellants 'employees' of those Banks appointment was made by the State and control vested with the State. It held that the c cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre i exclusively within the authority of the Stato reation of a ; a matter but if the : mere fact since the render the J iscip lin a ry se to make State did not choose to create a cadre but chc appointments of persons creating relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also_ acceDt the defen and so there was iustification for the Stal:r ' to utilise services of larqe number of oeopte like the a11 )ellants for re no sa n c': oned refused to contractual that ther e rrve 22 SN,J wP 32007 2022 decades. It held that "sanct o n ed oosts do not fall from heaven" and that the State has to create them bv a conscious choice on the basis of some rational assessment of need. Referrinq to Umadevi, it held that the apoellants before them were not arbi tra rilv chosen. their initial aoDointment was not an 'irre o ular'a ooointment as it had been made in accordance with the sta utorv orocedure t prescribed under the Police Act, 1861, and the State cannot be heard to sav that the a re not entitled to be absorbed into the services of the State on Dermanent basis as, accordinq to it, their aooointments were purely m r r nd not a ainst an n ned osts create b the Stat It was held that the iudqment in Umadevi cannot become a lice nce for exoloitation bv the State and its instrumentalitie s and neither the Government of Puniab nor those oublic sector B anks can contin ue such a oractice inconsistent with their obliqation to f nction in accordance with th e Con stitution.

15. The iudoment of the ADEx Cou rt reDorte in 2O15 scc Online SC 17 9 7 betwee B.S rt nivasul u and others v Nellore Municioal Cor Dor ReI] .b its Comm sroner Netlore District. Andhra Pradesh and others, in particular paras 7 and 8 reads as under: SN,J wP 12007 2022 We find it difficult to acceDt the reasoninq t dooted by, the (7) ruSl1 ep,qrt. The righr 9_LI!E- qppellotls lp scc{ tegal?1ZaqgJ1 flov,ts fron', iIe G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.199,1. The appelia nt have been in selvice of the first respondent not o, Iy prior to the issuance of the said G.O but even subsequen t i ) the issue of G.O. tl! todav. The respondent Municipality bei, g a statutory body is oblrged by the G.a. 212(supra). Insplt= of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for ?t nost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellant:; and continued to extract work from the appellants.

8. In the circumstances, refusing the benefl mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appella.. the Tribunal belatedly,, in our opinion, is not j,. circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifyinq rl appeal by directing that the appellants' services with effect from the date of their completing I continuous service as was laid down by this (c Collector/Cha irperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh 6 SCC 4BO" of the a bove s a pproached ;!:ified. In the e order under te regula rised teir five year irt in District )rs. 2409 (B)

16. In Amark ant Rai v State of Bihar reporlr:d (2015) 8 cc 265 reme Court held that 'T13 objective behind the exception carved out in this case u/ rs to permit regularization of such appointment, which it.e irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointmentr; which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure ;ecurity of emolovment of those oersons who had servq I the State Gove rn ent and their instrumentalities for mr re than ten vea rs" In that se, em D lo ee was workinq I'rr.. 29 vea rs. aA SN,J wP 32007 2022 Th is deci sion aDDroves earlier vrew expressed in M.L.Kesari extracted above. L7. In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasad reported in ( 20L4) 7 SCC 223 similar view was taken bv the Suoreme C ou rt and it was held as follows : In view of the aateooric.al findin 17 of fact on "41. relevant contentious issue that the resDondent emDlovees in their service for more than 7O vears have continu€il erefore, the leqal princiole laid down b contin uouslv this Court in Umadevi case (S tate of Karnataka v Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 7 2006 scc L&S) 73) at Dara 53 souarelv Hiqh Court has riqhtlv held that the respondent led for the relief, the same cannot be emolovees are en ln te to the resent cases. The DiVI red with bv this Court." nBI I

18. The Judgment of this Court dated (J6.t2.2O22 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 10.10.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated

09.O8.2024 in SLP No.32847 ot 2O24.

19. The iudqment of the ADex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Others reported 25 SN,J wP 32007 2022 in AIR 202O Suoreme Court 3969 and in pa1:icular oara Nos.lOO and 101 held as follows: "100. The High Courts exercising their jurr ; iiction under nly have the Arlicle 225 of the Constitution oF India. noi r power to ssue a rvrit oi mandamus or ir: t te ,lature of mandamus, but ar lrcise such power, where the Government or a outrl ic aut ho ritv has failed to exercise or has wronql'' exercised discretion conferred uoon it bv a statute _ lr a rule, or a policv decision of the Government or l'.; s exercised such discretion mala fide, or ori irrelevant consideration.

101. In all such cases, the High Court must t sue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel p: -formance in an appropriate and lawful manner oF t i e discretion conferred upon the Government or a public a.l hority."

20. The Division Bench of this Court in i Judqment dated 10.O .2013 passed i n W.A.Nos.782 of 2( 1O and 854 of 2O12 while upholdinq the Jud ment datecl 08.O9.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.N< 48 of 2OO8 I observed as und er:- "Further, it ls manifest from the material on r( services of the similarly placed persons who apprr Courts were regularized. The appellant-Corporati various office ordersT'circulars dated 20.12.1989 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.20a9 for re 1 casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen tl T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice b / or workman. As can be seen from the factual ; cases on hand, engaging the respondents for sl continuous period of time on casuai basis is noti labour practice attracting the provisions of Sect ( ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying or of the Apex Court, rightly held that the responder to regularlzation as directed in the impugneo ( cord that the ached the law ,n a lso issued LL.09.t992, ularizatlon of rt Section 25- any employer :ena rio of the :h a long and ing but unfair r 25-T of the the decis ions -s are en titled rders, as the 26 SN,J wP 32001 2022 learned single Judge considered all the aspects ot the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals."

21. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment dated 19.O9.2OL7 oassed in W.P.No.272 L7 of 2OL7 reported in 2018 2 A LD Daoe 282 at Dara 16 an ) d 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 IJma 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 bso rptio n/reg u la riza tion 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.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 ot the States where State enactments banning reg u la rlzatio n/a bsorption exist. Therefore , Act 2 0f 1994 100 and G.O. Ms. No .212, dated 22.4.L994 do not whittle down the width and the ini's ca the d tre ton s issued bw fhe Su ore e Court in Para 53 of its iudoment in Uma D evi's resoonden ts to take shelter under Act 2 of and G.O. Ms. No.212. dated 22.4,L9 94. to denv requlariza tion to have. admittedlv. satisf ied the the o in Man ula Ba su nrr \ T+ ic itioners. wh idd wn in Par ud m nt in .53 of h +h refo ra IE cto t et h u ra t Devi s case (supra).

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 2l '6'2017, in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside ith the direction to the and the wri t net ition ts al o wed w 21 SN,J wP 32007 1022 ectors and a resoondents to consider reqularisation of tll. services of the Detitioners a oainst the existino vacan( ies of Work ir satisfving m the criteria laid down in Para No,53 of thr iudoment in Uma Devi's case (suora ). This orocess must e completed within two months from the date of receio of a copv of this order." I J :

22. The Division Bench of this Court in i1:r Judqment dated 21.04.2020 oassed in I.A.N os.1 of 2O20 n 1 of 2O19 and w.P. No.23O57 of 2019 reoo ed in 2O2O 1)ALD Daqe 379 at Daras 45, 48 a nd para 50 observed as u rder:- 1 l I the lst resDon xercise of oreoarino the list of dailv o "45. There is no drspule that petitioners have br: n workrng on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost 30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum ire-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously !,( rking without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date 48. rt is not known wh t has no followed the decision in U ma Devi's cast i (supra), as exola ined in M.L. Kesart s case uora) and n dertaken a one-time emolovees who had wo rked for more than t without th tntervention of the C ourts and T 'i runals as on 10.4.2006 and subiect them to a Drocess ver i ication as to whether oosts and possess requisite qu fications for the oost ; and if so reoularize t er r servtces. 50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; .re impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the lst respo. lent rejecting the cases of petitioners For regularization of selices on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary a I I violattve of Articles 74, 16 and 21 of the Constitution ( f India; the resDon den s are directed to reo Iarize on o | 3-time basis petitioners' services from the date each of t;1 ]o etitio n ers comDlete 10 years of service on dailv wa g ls from the ,_ shall not be e .ise shall be I he date l ,f receiDt of ointm n f The weeks f rom t thev are workino ainst vacar ntitle m n done within two ( coDv of the order. " 2 ) f I B € 10 SN,J wP 32007 2022

23. This ourt ooines that in the Dresent case, the resD ondents fa iled to disch rqe their dutv in examrnrnq the request of the petitioner for req u la rization of Deti tioner's services who is workinq as full time sweeper and further to consider his reouest o treat the temDorarv service of the petitioner in the I ast qrade post of full time sweeoer a s reqular one for all ourooses bv o rantino last o rade oa with oeriod ical increment revis ed from time to tim e from the date of a DD ointment of the Detitioner, in accord ance to law.

24. This Court ooines that petitioner is entitled for co nsi dera tio n of oetitioner's case for orant of the relief as oraved for in the oresent Writ Petition in view of the observatio ns of the Aoex Court in various iudoments ( referred to and extract ed above) and the vi w of the Division Bench of this Court in the Jud o ments referred to and extracted above.

25. Takinq into co n s ide ratio n: - a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. 29 SN,J wP 3200, 2022 b) The submissions made by the learr ed counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and tearr ed standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 c) The observations of the Apex Court. in lhe various judgments (referred to and extracted above and again enlisted below: i)(2o2o) l scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCC pase 396 (iii) 2O2s rNSc 144 (iv) 2O24 LawSuit(SC) 1209 (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 201O(9) ScC 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Ontine SC 1-797 (ix) (2o1s) I scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 Scc223 (xi) SLP No.32847 of ZOZ4 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, page234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O20(a)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this (1, rurt dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O , rnd 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dated )8.O9.201O passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2007 and C.C.No.,t8 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), 30 SN,J wP _32001 2022 e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated L9.O9.2OL7 passed in W.P.No.272L7 ol 2O17 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 ot 2O2O in 1of 2O19 and W.P.No.23057 ot 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 oetitioner is directed to out-forth the claim of the petitioner for reo ular lzation of Detitioner's services, and also the claim of the oetitioner to treat the temoorarv services of the etitioner in the las r f r r r n for all purposes bv qrantinq last qrade pav with periodical increments revised from time to time from the date of aooointment of th e Detitioner and all consequential benefits, dulv enclosinq all the relevant documents in supoort of petitioner's case as put-forth in the present writ oetitio n within a oeriod of one (O1) week from the date of receiot of coov of the order and the respondents shal! examine and consider the same in accordance to 31 SN,J wP 3200t 2022 law, in confo rm itv with orincioles of naturl iu p rovid i nq an ooDort u n itv of oersonal petitioner I inq to the in terms of orders passed bv lle Su reme stice bv Court in Uma Devi's ca se reported in 2006(4) ;CC Paqe 1, the iudqment passed in W.P.No.24377 of IOOT dated 08.09.2010 reported in 2O11 ALD, Paqe 234 and as (1) eonfirmed in W.4.No.782 of 201O dated 1O.(l i.2O1 also as per Division Bench Judqment of this _ lourt dated 19.O9.2017 passed in W.P.N o.2 72L7 of 2OO7 reoorted in 20LA( 2)ALD Da qe 242 a nd also the Divi ion Bench Judo ent of this Cou rt dated 2L.O4.2O2( passed in I.A.Nos.1 of 2 O2O in 1 of 2O1 9 in W.P.No.2 3(.57 of 2OL9 reDo rted in 2O2O(4) ALD oaoe 379 which tr d attained fina I ity, within a period of four (O4) weeks frr m th date of receiot of a coov of this ord e r, ulv aki con sid eration the observatio n s and the law l: d down bv the Aoex Court in the various iudoments (ref l.red to and extracted above). an tn oarticular, oara N< .53 of the iudom ent of th Aoex Court in the case f State of Karnataka v. U Devi and dulv commt nicate the ion to th ral lbeno e Detitioner, However, I order a 32 SN,J wP 32007 2022 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall sta nd closed. SD/- T.SREENIVAS REDDY ASSTSTANT REGISTRAB---_-) To //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER One fair copy to the HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SU (For Her LadYshiP's Kind Perusa r) PALLI NANDA

1. 11 L,R. Copies. 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia' IVlinistry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High Coutt Buildings, Hyderabad

4. The Principal Secretary, Panchayathral Department, State of Telangana' Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

5. The Principal Secretary to Government, Education Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat Hyderabad. 6, The Principal Secretary, Finance & Planning Department, State of Telangana, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

7. .The Chief Executive officer, Zilla Pra.ja Parishad, Siddipet District, ZPP Siddipet(TS). g. The tvlandal Parishad Development officer cum Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Komaravelli lt4andal, Siddipet District. 9. One CC to SRI CH. GANESH, Advocate [OPUC] 1o.Two CCs to GP for Services-ll, High court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

11.One CC to SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, S.C. for ZPP [OPUC]

12.Two CD CoPies IMP TKS .-*#- HIGH COURT DA-l ED:2010812025 ORDER WP.Nr ) 32007 of 2022 F o() a. t H I g 2 t?) * f -,t-: ALLOWING THE \IIRIT PETITION WI' HOUT COSTS el b \{r 10 \ r\>t