Civil Appeal No. 1254 of 2018 · The High Court · 2025

Judgment

7. ct, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High cou( may be pleased to issue an order or direction mote particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondents to treat the services of the petitioners by converting their contingent posts on compassionate grounds as regular one in the rast grade post for continuousry working tifl date decades together on and arso extending the last grade services pay benefits with periodicar increments revised from time to time with effect from their initial appointment to till date with a'ears as per G.o.Ms.No.6B7, d1.03.10.1977 and G.o.Ms.No.661, dt.23.10.2008 to titt date is highty illegal unjust and unfair as frer Article 14, 16,21 , 39(department), 43 and 300(a) of constitution of rndia for subjecting them for exploitive enslavement taking advantage of herpress conditions of poverty, poor social, economical and poriticar background by the respondents herein in continuing them on pittance wages of Rs.1623/-p.M at present by treating them as bonded labour or sraves as such pay is not equar to cost of singre mear of a day of respondents herein and prays to direct the respondent herein to treat the temporary services of petitioners in contingent posts as regurar one in rast grade posts for all purposes by granting rast grade pay with periodicar increment revised from time to time from the date of appointment of the petitioners fro working decades together without any service progress by calling records to pay 100(PERCENT) compensation on arrears of pay as per the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 3416 - 3445 of 2010 dated 19-02-2019 in the case of Union of lndia Vs. Avtar Chand (2019 3 ALD SC 32) and in the case of Prem Singh Vs. State of UP and Batch cases (reported in 2O1g 10 SCC 516 in paras 36 and 37 by reckoning the contingent services of petitioners as qualifying service to grant pension gratuity and other retirement benefits as per principle laid in the'case of Netram Sahu Vs. State of Chattisgarh and Anr. in Civil Appeal No.1254 of 2018, dated 23-03-2018, followed by DB Orders issued in the case of Kadar Basha in WP No. 26788 of 2017 dated 10-08-2017 (DB) with costs by applying aforesaid principle laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 141 of our Constitution. lA NO: I OF 2022 Petition underSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents herein to pay last grade time scale benefits to the petitioner as paid to full time contingent sweepers of panchayat schools in proceedings Nos. 431173119, dt. 25.10.2021, 12tilA\t2o1s, dt. or.1o.2o1s with periodical increments revised from time to time, till converting their contingent sweeper posts provided on compassionate grounds into regular last grade posts as per orders granted by this Hon'ble Court in similarly situated case in l.A.No.1/2018, W.P.No.769812018, dt.09.03 .201 B. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI CH.GANESH counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 To 3 & 7: Gp FoR sERvrcgs-l counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 To 6: sRr PRADEEP REDDY KATTA The.Court made the following: ORDER 4 SN. J HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.32O3O oF 2(J22- ORDER ' Heard Sri CH.Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3& 7 and Sri Pradeep Reddy Katta, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 to 6.

2. The oetitioners aooroached the Court seekino praver as under: "..........to issue an order or direction mote particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondents to treat the services of the petitioners by converting their contingent posts on compassionate grounds as regular one in the last grade post for continuously working till date decades together on and also extending the last grade services pay benefits with periodical increments revised from time to time with effect from their initial appointment to till date with arrears as per G.O. Ms. No.6B7 dt 03. 10. t977 and G. O. Ms. No. 661 dt 23. 10. 2008 to till date is highly illegal unjust and unfair as per Article 14, 16, 21 39(department), 43 and 300(A) of Constitution of India for subjecting them for exploitive enslavement taking advantage of helpless conditions of poverty poor social economical and political background by the respondents herein in continuing them on pittance wages of Rs. 1623/p. M at present by treating them as bonded labour or slaves as such pay is not equal to cost of single meal of a day of respondents herein and prays to direct the respondent herein to treat the temporary services of petitioners in contingent posts as regular one in lasi 5 SN, J grade posts for all purposgs- bV granting last grade pay with periodicar increment revised from time to time from the date of appointment ,of the petitioners fro .working O"caA"i to-gethe, without any service progress by calling relords t;-;";ioot; compensation on arrears of pay_as per the principle fuid OV ine Honbte supreme court in c.A No. z4to_tqqs - idld dated L9.02.2019 in the case of Union of India Vs nvtar CninJ (3_019 (3] ALD SC 32) and in rhe case of prem Singh Vs staie o-r UP.and Batch cases reported in 2019 10 SCC S16 in paras 36 and.37 by reckoning the contingent services of petitioners ii qualifying service to grant pension gratuity and other retirement benefits as per principle laid in the case of Netram Sahu Vs State of Chattisgarh and Anr in Civil Appeal No. 1254 of 2O1g dated 23.03.2018 followed by DB Orders issued in the case of Kadar Basha in W.P. No. 26788 ot 2Ot7 dated 10.08.2017(DB) with costs by applying aforesaid principle laid by the Honble'Apex Court under Article 141 of our Constitution and pass.....,. "i r! n h oetitioners olacino reliance on the averments made in the affid vit filed rn suoD rt of th Dresent writ oetition pertainino in particular. to the services rendered bv petitaoners with the resoondents herein for more than a ds th ttheo itioner are en itled for the de de coir relief as oraved for in the oresent writ oetition. PERUSEP THE RECORD:- DISC USSTON A D CONCLUSION:- 4. Lea ed petitioners submits that the subiect issue in the oresent cou sel aDDearinq on behalf of ) 6 SN, J

case is souarelv covered bv the order of this Court dated og.o9.2o1o passed in w.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 reported in 2011(1) ALD. Paqe 234 as confirmed in w.A.No.782 of 201O. dated 1O.O6.2013 and also order, dated 19.09.2017 oassed in w.P.No.27217 of 2017 reported in 2018 (2) ALD Page 282 ancl also the orcter datecl 21.O4.2O2O oassecl in W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 reoorted in 2O2O(4) ALD Paoe 379.

5. Learned standino counsel aooearino on behalf of the respondent No.4 submits that the orievance of the oetitioners as put-forth in the oresent Writ Petition had not been addressed to the respondents herein as on date and therefore. the oetitioners cannot comolain inaction on the nart af racntrntlantc harain in arrncid r.inrr grievance of the petitioners and hence, the relief as praved for bv the oetitioner in the oresent Wit petition cannot be Sairted and no Mandamus can be issued aoainst the resoondents hereunder as souqht for and the petitioners mav be directed to out-forth the Detitioners' qrievance as put-forth in the present Writ Petition bv wav of a detailed representation to the respondents herein rrn^ri raaairri tsahtsaczlrtlrlirrn \ 7 SN, J respondents would consider the same in accordance to law, within a reasonable oeriod.

6. Learned counsel appearino on behalf of the petitioners does not dispute the said submission made bv the learned standinq counsel aopearinq on behalf of the respondent No.4

7. The Aoex Court in the iudoment reported in (202O) 1 SCC (L&S) in Prem Sinoh v State of Uttar Pradesh and others, at oara 36 held as under: "36. There are some of the employees who have not been regularized in spite of having rendered the services for 30- 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, those employees who have worked for ten years or more should have been regularized. It would not be proper to regulate them for consideration of regularization as others have been regularized, we direct that their services be treated as a regular one. However, it is made clear that they shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference in wages had they been continued in service regularly before attaining the age of superannuation. They shall be entitled to receive the pension as if they have retired from the regular establishment and the services rendered by them rioht from the day they entered / / 8 SN, J ,, persons as reoular one' hereunder:- \ \ I I ! I I I I I I ; I I i t 9 SN, J

10. hereunder: "12. Despite being labelled as ,,part_time workers," the apBellants performed these essential task-s on a aiifv and continuous basis over extensiv" p.iiJa", ranging from over a decade to neariy two decades. Their engagement was_n9t sioradic ;;-il;;;;ry in nature, instead, it ff;';"_11entr regutar, and akin to,.the .""J"nlibitities typ-catty associated with sanctioneJ'roar". tqorlover, the respondents aia not ing"g. any other personnel for these. tast<-s- - ariing-" ff appellants tenure, ,na"r""oring the " indispensable nature of tneiiwort. 13. nature of these duties classification as regular posts, irrespective of necessitates The recurri ng ) I ( - r.-'..i"--. .. ,;r;,&iffiIil&.;;. -Llii}=:!&i&iir*. --'-**z' -/./ l0 SN, J their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional. 24. The landmark judgment of the United State in the case of Vizcaino v Microsoft Corporation [97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996)l serves as a pertinent example from the private sector, illustrating the consequences of misclassifying employees to circumvent providing benefits. In this case, Microsoft classified certain workers as independent contractors, thereby denying them employee benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that these workers were, in fact, common-law employees and were entitled to the same benefits as regular employees. The Court noted that large Corporations have increasingly adopted the practice of hiring temporary employees or independent contractors as a means of avoiding payment of employee benefits, thereby increasing their profits. This judgment underscores the principle that the nature of the work performed, rather than the label assigned to the worker, should determine employment status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It hiohliohts the judiciarv's role in rectifirrino such misclassifacations and ensurino that workers receive fair treatment. 26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional 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. "irregular" \ SN, J ered for It cateooricallv held that emolovees in irreoular apoointments, who were enoaoed in dulv sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten vears should ularization as e one- be con time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately 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 regutarization exists for temporary employees, judgment's explicit overlooking the acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the iudqment's spirit and ouroose, effectlvely weaoonizino it aoainst emoloyees who have rendered indisoensable services over decades. In light of these considerations, in our 27. 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 emfloyment practices, government institutions can ieduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold th" principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to iollow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country' ) J t2 SN, J

28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 .10.2018 are quashed ; ii. The aopellants shall be taken back on dutv forthwith and their services resularised forthwith. However, the apoellants shall not be entitled pecuniary benefits/back waoes for the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuitv of services for the said period and the same counted for their oost- retiral benefits."

11. The Judgment of the Apex Cgurt dated 31.O1.2O25 reported in 2O25 INSC 144 in "SHRIpAL AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NTGAM, GHAZTABAD". in particutar, the rerevant oara Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder: "15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuouslv rendered their services o*'er severat vears, sometimes soannino more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not oroduced in full. the Em lover's failure rds- rf acnita rliranlianc adrrar.ca inference under well-established labour iurisorudence. rndian labour law stronoly disfavors furnish such en-rf -ir larere \ l3 { SN. J perpetual daily-waoe or contractual enqaoements in onooing municioal requirements vear after vear cannot be dismissed summarilv . as disDensable particularlv in the absence of a oenuine contractor aoreement. 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, u. exemplified in this case, reflects a broadersystemicissuethatadverselyaffects workers' rights and job security' In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements' often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, andfairtreatment.Suchpracticeshavebeen criticizedforexploitingworkersandundermining labour standards- Government institutions, entrusted withupholdingtheprinciplesoffairnessandjustice, bearanevengreaterresponsibilitytoavoidsuch dxploitative eniployment practices' When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not oniy mi..ors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent tnat can erode public trust in governmental oPerations' 'rt is a disconcerting reality that temporary )i. employees, particularly in government. institutions' oftenrace'*uttiru."tedformsofexploitation'while the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may haveoeentoaddressshort-termorseasonalneeds, they nave increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCConlineSC3826evadelong-termobligations I I v l4 owed to employees. These several ways: practices manifest in SN, J rw ork that IS o e qaoed n t'contractua1." even whenth r labell ssential. recurrrno, ,, or "tem ora les mi 'their identical tasks. . Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cau.e o. ,otii"j i, ,"un in the present case. This practice unJei,iiines tne principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardiess of theluality or duration of their service. . Lack of- Career Progression: Temporary employees often find rnemserves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises, They remain stagnant in their rotes, iilating a systemic disparity between them and regular counterparts, despite thdir contributions Ueing equally significant. . Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions rncreasingly resort to outs_ourcing roles performed by !:Tpofu.fy employees, effectively reptacing one set or exptoited workers with another. This prlctice not ,perpetuates exploitation but atso O6monsirates a oetiberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. o Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits; Temporary employees are often denied fundamental b6nefits such as. pension, provident fund, health insuiance, and paid leave, even when their tenure- spans decades. This lack of social security suffic-ts'tnem and their families to undue hardship.Ep".iuffy in . l5 't SN, J cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily wages with some measure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perpetuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left in a marginally improved yet still uncertain status. While the High Court recognized the importance of their work and hinted at eventual regularization, it failed to afford them continuity of service or meaningful back wages commensurate with the degree of statutory violation evident on record. L7. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violation of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, L947, and that they were enqaqed in essential. perennial duties, these workers cannot be releoated to oeroetual uncertaintv. While concerns of municioal budget and comoliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Employer of statutorv oblioations or neqate eouitable entitlements. fndeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trumo the leoitimate riohts of workmen who have served continuouslv in de facto reqular roles for an extended oeriod. t6 SN, J e*tent the, confine the Aooettant workmen to future -"rningfrl b".k *"o." is h.r"b, following directions: ".t arid. *ith th. I. The discontinuation of the Appeilant workmen,s services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and section 6N of the U.p. Industriat Disputes Act, L947, is declared iltegal. All oid"r, or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for 5il prrposes, iniruding seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Emproyer sharr reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the d_uties they previousry performed) within four weeks from the date of this'judlment. "9n!"or"nti"l b.n"fit" "r"h ", ,"ni*it, ,nd IIr. considering the rength of service, the Appeilant workrnen shail be entiiled to 50o/o or [ne oac[ irug", froq the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three mont'hs from the date of their reinstatement. I t7 SN, J oosts. In assessino reoularization, the Emoloyer shall not impose educational or procedural criteria retroactively if such requirements were never apolied to the Apoellant Workmen or to similarly situated reoular emolovees in the past. To the extent that sanctioned vacancies for such duties exist or are reouired, the Resoondent Emplover shall expedite all necessarv administrative orocesses to ensure these longtime emolovees are not indefinitely retained on dailv waqes contrary 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."

12. The Aoex Court in a iudqment reoorted in (2O17) 1 Supreme Court Cases 148, in State of Puniab and others vs Jaojit Singh and others at Paras 54 and its sub-oaras (1)(2)(3), of the said judqment observed as under: "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 gf 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, ( ( 18 SN, J shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2t But rs. ad hoc or if da (3) In the event, a ctaim is made for minimum pay scate after more than three years and two m'onths of completion of 10 years of .continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shalt be-intitted io arrears for a period of three years and two months.,,

13. 2 M. .Kesart an othe under: k n v !ar. oaras 4to9 reads as h 1 z. 2 4

4. The decision in State of Karnata devi*v. s rend red Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relatingto appointment did not confer any right on the appoin tees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regutarization or re- engaqement nor make their service permanent, and the High C^ourt in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, r,ggyla,rization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment nao been done in a regular manner, in terms of the constitutional scheme; ana that the couis iurl- o. careful in ensuring that they do not interfere undury *itn nu economic t9 SN, J arrcngement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities, nor lend themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates. This Court further held that a temporary, contractual, casual or a daily-wage employee does not have a legal right to be made permanent unless he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : ian 17979 (41 "53. One aspect needs to be ctarified. There mav be cases where irreaular aooointmenB (not illeoal aooointmentsl as exolained in S.V. Naravanaooa 17967 (7) SCR 7281. R.N. Naniundaooa f7972 (71 soTl scc 409 I and B.N. Naoa and referred to in oara 75 above, of dulv qualified persons in dulv sanctioned vacant Dosts might have been made and the emoloyees have continued to n vears or more but without the work for interuention of orderc of the courts or of tribunals. The question of reaularization of the services of such emolovees mav have to be considered on merib in the light of the orinciples seEled bv this Court in the cases abovereferred to add in the lioht of this iudoment. In that context. the Union of India. the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steos to reoularize as a one-time measure, the services of such irreoularlv apoointed. who have worked for ten vears or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or- of tribunals and should further ensure that reoular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned oosts that reduire to be filled uo. in cases where temoorary emplovees or daily waoers are beind now emoloyed. The orocess must be set in motion within six months from this date. .... "5. ft 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 iore in duty 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 r ( 20 SN, J the emproyee and continued him in service voruntariry and continuously for more than tei yiurr. (ii) The appointmentt.of such emproyee shourd not be iregar, even if irregurar.^-where .the ippointmenti-ile"not made or -posts or wheie the persons continued against appointed do not po:.:go the prescribea miniiii quarifications, the appointments.witt be ;";;;;;ud b be ittegat. dut where the person employed possessed the prescribed qualifications and was working again_st.,sanctionei p9sts, tut nii ieen serected without undersoins the pror"i, t rrLizliiztiiir" setection, such appointmenti uru ,6niialii to ou irregular. _sanctio.ned 6' The term 'one-time measure, has to be understood in its proper perspective. This wourd normary mea,n-that after the decision in um7.!eyi, eici'ali"rtrunt or ";;; instrumentatity should undertake a'one-tiie-elercise and prepare a rist of att casuar' dairv-wa,1- ?l "d iig-.uiptoyees wh{ n{* been working for more than ten. years withou[ tie intiilin:i, of courts and tribunals and subject thei-ii " proru* verification as b w h e t h e r t n uv u T _y o rk i ! 9 u g u i-it u ica n t- ji sili ii, a possess fhe :zii';:: quatification ro7 tii"'iott and if so, resutarize their 7. At the end of six months from _the dab of decision in i.'"'!;,f "'0":,i!,;'";:i.i:fr ;:"geraa-niiiiaiur,"ii:i;";; ",,ii ! ii ;,i?'iflii! i!!; j ; :{! : J, a i i, t i iJ,i a e p a rt i-e i r time regurarization proi"tr'''"on -tnu " " iii'"r'= nura, some Government departments or inistrumunt"iiiul' undertook the one-time u*uT:: __llctuding-, severat emjioyees from consideration either on the giiina m"t7iii, i'r{J'*uru pending in courts or due to tn"ir-iiuiiint. n s,iin-iiriirrtunces, the emproyees who were entitted to'be..gonsidered in terms of para 53 of the decision in u.uiuii, *itt Totl;;; ii,",) ,,gnt b be considered for regutariraiii,'' mterety oiiiiu,"'inu one_time a 2l SN, J exercise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-iime exercise should consider all daily- iig"tianoc/those employees yho had put in 10 years of continuous senrice as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals, If any Zmpbyer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of iiaaLvi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitted to the benefit of para 53 of lJmadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded iiy wnen att the employees who are entitled to be considered in ierms of Para 53 of lJmadevi, are so considered' measure. 9. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in Umadevi' The Appellant- (Zila Panchayat' Gadag) has ,oi ,oitidered the cases of respondents of i"gr)Tirution wiihin six months of the decision in Umadevi or thereafter. r l' / /,/./ 22 SN, J

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila panchayat, Gadag shoutd now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daity wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) futfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of llmadevi. If they fulfill them, their services have to be regularized. If such an exercise has already been undertaken by ignoring or omitting the cases of respondents 1 to 3 because of the pendency of these cases, then their cases shall have to be considered in continuation of the said one time exercise within three months. It is needless to say that if the respondents do not fulfill the requirements of Para 53 of Umadevi, their services need not be regularised. If the employees who have completed ten years service do not possess the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, at the time of their appointment, they may be considered for regularization in suitable lower posts, This appea! is disposed of accordingly. L4. fn the iudqment the Aoex urt an Nihal Sinoh hers v. 1 P 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appoanted by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paad by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vested with the State. It held that the creation of a 23 SN, J cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusively within the authority of the state, but if the State did not choose to create a cadre but chose to make appointments of persons creating contractuat relationship, its action is arbitrary. @ It basis as,, accordino to it their apoointments were purelv bv the State. f ( i { I 24 SN, J me a lacence for exDloitation bv the State and cannot its instrumentalities and neither the Government of Puniab nor those oublic sector Banks can continue such a oractice inconsistent with their obliqation to function in accordance with the Constitution.

15. The iudq ment of the Aoex Court reDorted in 2O15 SCC Online SC 1797 between B.Srinivasulu and others v Nellore Munic oal Corooration Reo.bv its Commissioner, Nellore Distri ct, Andhra Prad esh and others, in oarticular paras 7 a nd 8 reads as under: (7) We find it difficult to acceD t the reasonino adooted bv the k reoularization rioht of the aooellants to Hioh Court. Th flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.7994. The aDDellant issuance of the said G.O. but even subseouent to the issue of G.O. tilI toda The respondent Municipality being a statutory body is obliged by the G.O. 212(supra). Inspite of the above mentioned G.O. the respondents kept quite for almost 20 years without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants. t

8. In the circumstance, refusing the benefit of the above mentioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' services be regularised with effect from the date of their completing their five year continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Collector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh &. Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 480. 25 SN, J

16. In Amarkant Rai v State of Bihar reported (2O15) g SCC 265, the Suoreme Court held that .The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regularization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure securitv of emolovment of those oersons who had served the state Government and their instrumentalities for more than ten years". fn that case, emolovee was workinq for 29 years. This decision aooroves earlier view exoressed in M.L.Kesari extracted above.

17. In tqof Jarkhand v Kamal Prasad oorted in (2O14) 7 SCC 223- similar view was taken bv the Suoreme Court and it was held as follows : "47.,,. In view of the cateaorical finding of fact on the relevant contentious issue that the resoondent employees have continued in their service for morethan lo years continuously therefore the legal principle laid down by this court in umadevi case (state of Karnataka v llmadevi (2OOG) 4 SCC 7 : 2OO6 SCC (L&S) 73) at para 53 squarety applies to the present cases. The Division Bench of the High Court has rightly held that the respondent emoloyees are entitled for the relief. the same cannot be interfered with by this Court." f( ,:*."F-G7y' ,/ 26 SN, J

18. The Judgment of this Court dated 06.12.2(J22 passed in W.P.No.276O2 ol 2O19 which pertaans to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha . Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 ot 2o23 dated 1O.1O.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.

19. The iudoment of the Aoex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust V. State of Maharashtra and Other reoorted in AIR 2O2O Suoreme Court 3969 and in oarticular oara Nos.lOO and 1O1 held as follows: "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are dutv-bound to exe ise such gower. where the Government or a public authoriW exercise or has wro lv exercised has failed discretion conferred uoon it bv a statute, or a rule, or a policy decision of the G ercised such discretion mala fide. or .on irrelevant consideration. rnment or has

101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority"' 27 SN, J 20- The Division Bench of this couft in its Judqment observed as under:- "Further, it is manifest from the material on record that the services of the similarly placed persons who approached the law courts were regularized. The appellant-corporation also issued various office orders/circulars dated 20.L2.1999, 11.09. Lgg2, 06.L0.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for regurarization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seen that Section 25- T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practice by any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factual scenario of the cases on hand, engaging the respondents for such a long and continuous period of time on casual basis is nothing but unfair labour practice attracting the provisions of section 2s-T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying on the decisions of the Apex court, rightly held that the respondents are entifled to regularization as directed in the impugned orders, as the learned single Judge considered all the aspects of the matter in detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals."

21. The Division Bench of this court in its Judqment in W-P-No-27r77 of 2lJ1.7 -O9-2IJ1,7 nassed 7 observed as under:- "16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article L4L of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of L994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.L994, 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 I / 28 SN, J go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time absorption/reg u la rization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directlons in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regularization/absorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 10 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated ,, L l (!Otl iudgment in /rfanjula Bashrnf's case (suora). does not l(tt rer the trricct.trv rectia! s iscrred hv tho Suoreme Court in Para 53 o its iudoment in Uma Devi's a f.rr. tha z.raa resDondents to take shelter under Act 2 ot L994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, to denv reoularization to the oetitioners, who have. admiftedlv. satisfied the criteria laid down in Para N .53 of the iudoment in Uma Devi's case (suora). ihara f ra rtrai nar.riticc (rf t h Ftl ,l.rr rrr fha /cr rnrr I Ti ,l,r n,r+ r ri.lflr rerhi}}la rrr.l h n ic rlla

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27,6.2OL7, in OA No.1442 of 20t4t on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and iha rrrr.it nalilian rrrilh iha d ..a.tir!rr +.i tha respondents to consider regularisation of the services of the petitioners aoainst the existano vacancies of Work Inspectors and aoooint them subiect to their satisfyino the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the iudoment in U, ma Devi's case (supra). This orocess must be comoleted within two months from the date of receiot of a coDv of this order."

22. The Division Bench of this Court an its Judoment dated 21.O4.2O20 oassed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 reoorted in 2O2O(4)ALD oaoe 379 at oaras 45, 48 and oara 5O observed as under:- "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from 29 SN, J the year 2000. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date. avarniea e 1st resoondent has not 48- It is not known whv followed the decision in Uma Devi's case (suora), as explained in M.L. Kesari's case (supra) and undertaken a lrrtrra ana-firrra employees who had worked for more than ten (1O) years without the intervention of the Courts and Tribunals as on 1O.4.2OO6 and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and oossess requisite qualifications for the posts, and if so, regularize their services. aC rtratt.e rina lic* aC rlrilrr

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the cases of petitioners for regularization of services on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles L4, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the respondents are directed to regularize on one-time basis oetitioners' services from the date each of the petitioners complete 1O years of service on daily wages from the initial dates of their appointment. But, thev shall not be entitled to any monetary relief. The said exercise shall be done within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order."

23. This Court ooines that in the present case the respondents failed to discharoe their duty in examinino the request of the oetitioners for reoilarization of petitioners' services, who is workino as full time sweeoer ta aancirler t hair rarrrracf temoorarv service of the petitioners in the last orade post of full time sweeper as reoular one for all ourooses bv grantinq last grade pay with periodical increment revised I / 30 SN, J from time to time from the date of aDDointment of the oetitaoners, an accordance to law. 2,4. This Court oDines that Detitioners are entitled for consideration of oetitioners' case for qrant of the relief as oraved for in the oresent Writ Petition in view of the observations of the Aoex Court in various iudqments ( referred to and extracted above) and the view of the Division Bench of this Court in the Judqments referred to and extracted above, consideration:-

25. Takino in a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petationers and learned standing counse! appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5 c) The observations of the Apex Court in the various judgments (refErred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: i)(202o) l scc (L&s) (ia) 1990(2) SCC Page 396 3l SN, J (iii) 2025 rNsC 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(Sc) L2O9 (v) (2oL7) 1 scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2013) l4scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC 1797 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2oL4) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2Ot1(1) ALD, Page 234 (xv) 2O18(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 10.06.2013 passed in W.A.Nos.7B2 of 2O1O and 854 of 2Ot2 while uploading the Judgment dated 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 ol 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OOg (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 19.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.2ZZL7 ol 2OL7 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 21,.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23057 of 2O19 (referred to and extracted above). / / ( 32 SN. J g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 ofthe present order. Writ Petiti ntsa lowed e etiti ne directed to Dut-forth the laim of the Detitioners for reqularization of oetitioners' services, and also the claim of the Detitioners to treat the temDorary services of the oetitioners in the last orade oost of Sweeoer as reoular one for all ourooses bv o ntinq last qrade Dav with oeriodical increments revised from time to time from the date of appointment of the petitioners and all conseouential benefits, dulv enblosino all the relevant documents in suooort of oetitioners' case as out-forth in the oresent writ oetition, within a oeriod of one (O1) week m the dat n h resoondents shall examine and consider the same in accordance to law. in conformitv with orincioles of natural \ the oetitioners. in terms of orders oassed bv the Suoreme the i udoment Da ssed tn w .P.No.243 77 of 2OO7 dated 08.09.2O10 reoorted in 2011 (1) ALD, Paoe 234 and as 33 SN, J confirmed in W.A,No.782 of 2O1O dated 1O.O6.2O13, and also as oer Division Bench Judqment of this Cpurt dated

19.09.2017 passed in W.P.No.27217 of 2007 reoorted in 2O18(2)ALD oaoe 282 and also the Division Bench Judqment of this Court dated 21.O4.2O2O oassed in 2O in 1 of 2OL9 in W.P.No. 3Os7 of 2O19 I.A.Nos.1 of reoorted in 2O2O(4rALD oaoe 379 which had aftained finality. within a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of receiot of a copv of this order, dulv takino into consideration the observations and the law Iaid down bv the Aoex Court in the various iudoments (referred to and extracted above), and in particular, oara No.53 of the iudoment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka y. Uma Deyi and duly communicate the decision to the oetitioners. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Misceflaneous petitions, if ?oY, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed /TRUE COPY// One Fair CoPY to the Hon'ble MRS JUSTICE (For Her LadYshiPs Kind Perusal) SD/.B. REKHA RANI ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER PALLI NANDA T o 1 11 LR CoPies.

2. The Under Secretary, Union Affairs, New Delhi'

3. The Secretary, Telangana Buildings, HYderabad' of india tvlinistry of Law, Justice and Company Advocates Association Library' High Court 7 \ - - - Suiyapet(T.S) State of Telangana. Saifabad , Hyderabad.

4. The Principqt.!-e9rejary, Panchqyjtf,raj and Rurar Emproyment Department, - lgcrgtariat, Hlderabad, Qtqte of Tetanfuani. 5. The Principal Secretary, Education Defartment, secretariat, Hyderabad, 6- The Commissioner of School Education Department Govt . of Telangana, 7 . The chief Executive officer, zilla praja parishad, suryapet District, B. The Chief Executive Officer, ZillaPrqa Parishad, R.R. District, Khairatabad, 9. The chief Executive officer, zillapraja parishad, Nalgonda District, 10' The Prl. Secretary to Finance and planning Department, State of Telangana, 11.ONC CC tO SF{I CH.GANESH, AdVOCAIC TOPUCI 12'Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-|, High'Cou-rt-fbr the State of Telangana, at _ Llvdelabad. [oUTJ 13. ONC CC tO SRI PF{ADEEP REDDY KATTA, AdVOCAIC TOPUC] 14.Two CD Copies Secretariat, Hvderabad Hyderabad(TS) Nalgonda(TS) PSK. BS W ) HIGH COURT DATED:1610712025 CC TODAY \ ORDER WP.No.32030 of 2022 q i n (, l-i 1 ]. ii25 z. o o ( * I I ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I s