Md. Noor v. 1. The State of Telangana

Order

Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Rural Development, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.l and 3, learned Government Pleader for Finance and planning, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 and Sri K. Pradeep Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for ZPPS AND MPP AND GPPS, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

2. The petitioner apDroached the Court seekinq praver as under: "....to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the natute of Writ of Mandamus to declare the in action of the respondents in not regularizing the temporary appointment provided to the petitioner on compassionate grounds in the year 1989 as per GO Ms. No. 687 dated O3/lO/t977 to till date by paylng starving wages of Rs. 4000/- per month from 31 long years ignorlng legitimate wages payable to the petitioner as per Section 13 and 15 of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and Section 4 of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 R/W Article 14, 16,21,39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of our Constitution, -r_ 4 SN. J wp,29108_2021 { as highly illegal. unjust, unfair and violation of the provisions of the said Acts and our Constitution and prays to direct the respondents herein to treat the petitioner as a regular one in the last grade post from the date of appointment i'e. Ol/09lL9B9 by applying the principle laid by the Honorable Suprerle Court in C.A. No. 6798 of 2019 dated 02/O9/2OI9 in the calie of Prem Sino Vs. State of U,P. (2O1I (1) SCC 516) and with further direction to release all the consequential monetary benefits of the last grade post w.e.f. 2510611993 to till date from time to time with 100 Percentage compe lsation on arrears of pay as per the principle laid by the Honorable Supreme Court in CA No. 3416 - 3445 of 2OlO dated L9/02/2019 in the case of Union of India Vs' Avatar Chand (2019 3 ALD SC 32) by awarding heavy cost and pass...'. ed counseI aooearinq on be alf of the 3 itio ner nlaainrr ra li 1 nce o iha rrrar m a n+c made in lha liled in suDDort of the oresent writ oetition ndered bv affidavit pertaininq in Darticu lar. to the services Detitioner with the decade conte ds that the oetitioner is entitled for the soondents herein for more than a relief as oraved for in the oresent writ etition. PERUSED THE RECORD:- DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION -"/ 5 SN, J wp-29308 -2021

4. Learned counsel appearinq on behalf of the petitioner submits that the subiect issue in the oresent case is squarelv covered bv he order of this Court, dated

08.O9.2O1O oassed in W.P.N o.24377 ol 2OO7 reoorted in

2011(1) ALD, Paqe 234 as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2010, dated 10.o6.2013 and also order, dated 19.09.2O17 oassed in W.P.No.272L7 ot 2Ol7 reDorted in 2O 18 (2) ALD Paqe 282 and also the order. dated 21.O4.2O2O oassed in W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 reoo ed in 2O2O(4) ALD Paoe 379.

5. Learned standino counsel aooearino on behalf of the that the qrievance of the resoondent No.4 submats petitioner as put-forth in the Dresent Writ Petition had not been addressed to the resoo dents herein as on date and therefore, the oetitioner can not comolain inaction on the n n n h rein in consider the petitioner and hence, the relief as oraved for bv the oetitioner in the oresent Wit oetition cannot be qranted and no Mandamus can be issued aoainst the resoondents hereunder as souqht for and the oetitioner mav be directed to out-forth the oetitioner's qri ance as out- forth in the oresent Writ P ition bv wav of a detailed F { 6 SN. J wp_29308_2021 reores entation to the resDondents herein and uDon con s of the said re resentatio n, the res ider the same in accordance tol aw, withina ndents reas nable oeriod. 6 Learn ed counsel aoDearrnq on behalf of the oeti oner u b t standino counsel aooearino on behalf of the resoondent No.4 7 The Aoex Court in t e iudqment oorted in ( 2020) 1 IL in Pre fU r others, at para 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. I,s 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 F:arnataka versus Umadevi (3)11. This Court in the said cecision has laid down that in case services have been rendered for more than ten years without the cover of the C:ourt's order, as one-time measure, the services be regularized of such employees. In the facts of the case, tlose 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 t-eated as a regular one. However, it ls made clear that trey shall not be entitled to claiming any dues of difference 7 7 SN, J wp_29i08_2021 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 reqular establishment and the services rendered bv them rioht from the day thev entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifvinq service for ouroose of oension."

8. The Aoex Court in the case of Dharwad District PWD Literate Dailv Waoe Emolovees Association Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1990(2) SCC Paqe 396 laid orinciple that the State should not keep a Derson in temoorarv or adhoc service for lonq period and have to treat such persons as reqular one.

9. Para No.53 of the of the iudqment of the Aoex Court in the State of Karnataka a d others Vs. Umadevi, dated 10.04.2006 reported in (20O6) 4 SCC 1 is extracted hereunder:- "53. One asDect needs to beclarified. There mav be cases where irreoular appointments (not i!!eqal appointments) as exDlained in S.V. NaravanaDpa 11967 (1'l SCR 128'1, R.N. Nanjundaooa 11972 (1) SCC 4O9'l and B.N. Naqaraian [1979 (4) SCC 5071 and referred to in oara 15 above, of dulv oualified persons in dulv sanctioned vacant posts miqht have been made and the emo lovees have continued to work for ten vears or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The ouestion of reoulariza tion of the services of such FI! 8 SN. J wp_29308_.202r red on h ve to be r me ment. n ttled bv this Cou enn o! rt in the the lioht of the orincioles cases a overeferred to and in the liqht of this h ould ta e steos to reoularize as a for t ne-trme measure the services of such irreqularlv apoointed, sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and shou ld further ensure that reoular recruitments are undertaken to fill s tha in cases where temDorarv em olovees or dail waqers are beinq ow emoloved. T e orocess must e set tn m otion within six mon hs from this date. n sa nct h ve r

10. The iud ment of the ADex Court dated 2O.L2.2O24 reoorted in 2024 LawSuit(SC) 120 others v. Union of India and others, and the relevant in Jaqqo Anita and oh Nos.12. L3. 24, 26, 27 and 28 are extracted hereunder: "12. Despate being labelleil as "part-time wo rkersr" the appellants performed these essentia! tasks on a daily and continuous barsis over extensive periods, ranging from ov'er a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regular, anrd 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. .7 t 9 SN. J wp_29308_2021 The clai bv the resoond ents that 13. these were not reqular posts lacks merit, as +lrena irrra aA brr+ h rerork aDDellants was Oerennial and fun amental to the functioninq of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how 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 such misclassafications and ensurino that workers receive fair treatment. ro! ( l0 SN. J wp_29308_2021 r \ "irregular"

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and t:nsure 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 judgrnent aimed to distinguish between "illegal" appointments. It cateqoricallv held that emolovees in irregular aDDointments, who were enqaqed in dulv sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten vears should be considered for reqularization as a one- 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 regularization exists for temporary employees, judgment's explicit overl')oking the acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective aoolication distorts the iudqment's spirit a nd ouroose, effectivelv weaoonizino it aoains emolovees who have dcsades" 27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and s;table 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 labou'standards but also exposes the organization to lelyal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can redu<:e the burden of unnecessary litigation, 7 , SN, J wp_29308_2021 promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices an the country. 28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed to the following extent: i. The termination orders dated 27 .tO.2OLB are quashed; The ao ellants shall be taken ai. on dutv fo hwith and their services reqularised forthwith. llants shall ot be However. the aD entitledto Decunaarv benefi ts/back wa es for the oeriod be en itled to continuitv of s rvlces for the said oeriod and the same for their oost- would be count retiral benefits." h ve w o

11. The J do mentoft e ADCx Cou

31.O1 2o 25 reDo ed in 2O25 rNsc 144 *SHRIPAL AND ANOT ER v. R NIG AZI 19 d *15. a u n w conti uouslv sometim ndered their es soanni q several de. t: ( t2 SN. J wp_29308_2021 a in muster lls were not oroduced in full, Even if cert the E molover's failure to furnish such reco s- do so-allows an adverse desoite directions well- stablish dla inference EIE tual dailv-waqe or contractual e oaoeme sta ces where the onqo no muntc ioal reouirements vear after vear ork is Dermane t t vo ts in w u a s cu la rly the absence of a qenuine contra ctor aqree ment. 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 ,:ontracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a lroader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private rieator, the rise of the glg economy has led to an ncrease in precarious employment arrangements, lften characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been :riticized 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 cbserved in the gig economy but also sets a 3oncerning precedent that can erode public trust in Sovernmental operations. r- d/r - I l3 SN, J wp_29308_202 I

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 owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: . Misu e of "TemDo nlovees enoaged for work that is essential, recurrino' and inteqral to the functionins of an institution are often labelJed as "temporary" or their rol mrrror "contr regular emplovees. Such those of fication deorives workers of the miscla dionitv- securitv. and benefits that reoular employees are entitled to. despite oerforminq identical tasks. al," even w rv" Labels: o Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. . Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. . using outsourcing as a shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates { ,t / 14 SN, J wp_29308-2021 a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer reg u lar employment. . Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circu mstances. "

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 mea:;ure of parity in minimum pay. Regrettably, this only perp,etuated precariousness: the Appellant Workmen were left n 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 affor,l them continuity of service or meaningful back wages comrnensurate with the degree of statutory violation evide:nt on record. 17. In light of these considerations, the Employer's discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen stands in violat:ion of the most basic labour law principles. Once it is established that their services were terminated without adhering to Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that thev were enqaqed in tial. erennial duties, these workers cannot be ncern s ual uncertai tv. While co releoa ted to oero m ti n I l5 SN, J wp 29308 2021 m E Tal m "it l n I. The discontinuation of the Appellant Workmen's services, effected without compliance with Section 6E and Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, L947, is declared illegal. All orders or communications terminating their services are quashed. In consequence, the Appellant Workmen shall be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, for all purposes, including seniority and continuity in service. II. The Respondent Employer shall reinstate the Appellant Workmen in their respective posts (or posts akin to the duties they previously performed) within four weeks from the date of this judgment. .1 n III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50Yo of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their f r6 SN, J u,p_29308_2021 actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. IV. initiate a fair and nsoarent orocess for rraratc lecaceinrr r.aarrlrr.i;rlizrn n r m n

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." t2. 2 L7 "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary emplcryees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay- scale, merely for the reasont that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The futl bench t t7 SN, J wp 29308,202t 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 reqular pay scale from the date of engagement. (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 10 years of continuous working, a daily wager, ad hoc or contractual employee shall be entitled to arrears for a period of three years and two months."

13. 4 Constitution Bench of this Court held that appo intments made ( ( l8 Sr", J wp 29308_2021 without foltowing the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and court.; cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re- engallement nor make their service permanent, and the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regul,lrization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular mannerr in terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the coutts must be careful in ensuring that they do not inteffere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instru mentalities, nor letnd themselves to be instruments to facilitate the bypassing of the constitutional and statutory mandates' This Court further hetd 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 76 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : t9 SN, J wp_29308_2021 "5. It is evident from the above that there is an exception to the general principles against ' regularization' enunciated in Umadevi, if the following conditions are fulfilled : (i) The employee concerned should have worked for 70 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the State Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in service voluntarily and continuously for more than ten years. (ii) The appointment of such employee should not be illegal, even if irregular. Where the appointments are not made or continued against sanctioned posts or where the persons appointed do not possess the prescribed minimum qualifications, the appointments will be considered to be illegal. gut 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.

6. The term 'one-time measure' has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in tJmadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of cou rts and tribunals and subject them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess the requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services, I \| \ 20 SN, J wp_29308_2021

7. Ai: the end of six months from the date of decision in uma<levi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were still pending before Courts. Consequently, several depa,tments and instru mentalities did not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the empltyees who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 oF the decision in Umadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exer<:ise was completed without considering their cases, or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise should consider all daily- wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 70 years of conti,luous service as on 70.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any empltyer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of l|madevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of Umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the c'ne-time exercise. The one time exercise will be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered. orac:tice of emolovino Dersons on ilv-waoe/ad- -\ ^7 2l SN. J wD_29308_202t the emDlover has not uDdertaken such exerci lariza 'ion within s madevi or that such exe reoard to a limited few, will not disentitle such emDlovees, the risht to be considered far resuladzatign s in Umadevi as a one-time in terms of the above directi' measure.

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

10. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed that the cases of respondents should be considered in accordance with law. The only further direction that needs be given, in view of Umadevi, is that the Zila Panchayat, Gadag should now undertake an exercise within six months, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc employees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfiil 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 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 appeal is disposed of accordingly. L4. In the iudqment of the Aoex Court in Nihal Sinqh and others v. State of Puniab reDorted in 2013 ) 14 SCC 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose r -(- 22 SN, J wp_29308_2021 wages w,ere paid by Banks at whose disposal their services rruere made availabte. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank did not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary control vclsted with the State. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadre is a matter exclusivelly 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 contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also refused to accept the defence that there were no sanctaoned posts and so there was iustification for the State to utilise services of laroe number of oeoole Iike the aooellants for decades. It held that "sanctioned posts 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. Referrino to umade vi, it held that the aooellants before them were not arbitrarilv chose their initial aooointment was not an 'irreoular' aooointment as it had ade in accordance with the statuto Drocedure {* 23 SN, J wp_29308_2021 orescribed under the Police Act. 1861, and the state cannot be heard to sav that they are not entitted to be absorbed into the services of the State on permanent basis as, accordino to it. their appointments were purely temporary and not aqainst anv sanctioned posts created by the State. It was held that the judqment in Umadevi cannot become a licence for exoloitation bv the state and its instrumen talities and neither the vernment of Puniab nor those public sector Banks can continue such a oractice inconsistent with their obligation to function in accordance with the Constitution.

15. The iudome nt of the Aoex Court reDorted in 2015 SCC Online SC 1797 between B.Srinivasulu and others v Nellore Municioal Corporation Rep.by its Commissioner, Nellore District, Andhra Pra sh and others. in oarticular paras 7 and 8 reads as under: (7) flows from the G.O. No.212

22.4.1994. The aooellant issuance of the said G.O. but even subsequent to the issue of G.O. till today. 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 r U( 24 SN, J wp_29308,2021 without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants. In the circumstances, refusing the benefit of the above B. menrioned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the lribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not justified. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeat 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 Coltector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (B) scc 480.

16. markant Rai v State of Bihar reoorted (2015) 8 scc 265,, the Suoreme Court held that behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit 'The objective regutarization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure securitv of !o me h e ers wh had se G nt and th tn rumen m re than vears". I n that c se, emolovee was workino for 9 vears. !on r v s ear M.L.Kesari e racted above. L7. In State of Jarkhand v Kamal Prasad reoorted in (2O14) i, SCC 223, similar view was taken bv the Supteme Court and it was held as follows : 25 SN, J wp_29308_2021 *47.... In view of the ca I findina of on the

18. The Judgment of this Court dated 06-12-2022 passed in W.P.No.276O2 ot 2O19 which pertains to regularization of 35 NMRS of Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple, Yadadri, Nalgonda District, which had been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.937 ol 2023 dated 10.1O.2O23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated O9.O8.2O24 in SLP No.32847 of 2O24.

19. The i doment of he Aoex Co rt in Hari rish na n :l c n "100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the powe r to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, I 26 SN, J wp 29308 2021 discretion confer red uoon it bv a statute, or a rule, or ADolicv decision f the Gov rnment or has exercised fide, or on irrelevant iscretion mala h consideration.

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

20. The: Division Bench this Court in ts Judo ent

0.o in W. os.7 t 20t of2012 whil e uohol inq the Judqme nt dated O8.O 9.2010 W.P.No.24 377 of 2OO7 and C.C.No .48 of 2OO8 asu der:- "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 a ppella nt-Corporation also issued varicus office orders/circula rs dated 20.12.1989, 11.09.1992, O6.L).2OO7 and latest being 4.7.20O9 for regularization of casu,a l/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 case:; 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 provislons of Section 25_T of the ID Ar:t. The learned Single Judge while relying on the decisions of thr: Apex Court, rightly held that the resporidents are entitled to regularization as directed in the impugned orders, as the learn:d 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.,, 2L. The d B h Cou n inW 2 2 7 o 27 SN, J wp_29308_202 | 2 ALD 82a 6an rved as un "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 Uma Devi's case (supra), was rendered, the provisions of Act 2 of tgg4 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.7994, 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 absorption/reg u la rization of those, who were working for a period of not less than 10 years. It has given directions in this regard to all the State Governments and also Union of India. The Supreme Court is presumed to be conscious of various State enactments such as Act 2 of 1994 and executive orders such as G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, while giving directions in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). But still, it has not made any exception in favour of the States where State enactments banning regu la rization/absorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 1OO and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated ,, A IO(l/t iudoment in Manjula Eashrni's case (suora), does not ower the tr aIect rv of the directi on ssued bv the o Suore me Court in Para 53 of its iudoment in Devi's a-=ca Icr rnr: r 94 n G.O. n ated 22.4.L994, to denv re ularization to Ms. No.212, rd rm il+ailrr +ha criteria laid d wn in Para No.53 of the iu oment tn Uma Devi's case (supraL rralili.rrra rc wh a hrrra n.ti 6ar.rt ccihla d^r^, n tlra c-+iefiarl fharafnr.a r^rh:fll6 ?r.if ;.lflr .rrd It < r A I r urn ie rllarerarl

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2077, in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside rerilh +ha d tra-+ .rtr +^ iJra resDondents t consider reoularisation of he services of the petitioners against the existing vacancies of Work Insoectors and aoooint them subiect to their satisfvino the criteria aid down in Para No.53 of t e iudoment in Urna Deyi's case (supra). This process must be comoleted within two of a coDv of this order." m nths from the date ot recet I l 28 SN, J wp_29308_2021

22. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment dated 2L.o4.2 2O oassed in I.A.Nos.1 o 2O2O in 1of 2019 f and W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 reported in 2O2O 4)ALD paqe a Orlnr 7 ras 45. 48 and oara 5O observe d 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 serv ce by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date. 48. It is not known whv the 1st resoondent has not t wed the de ision in Uma Devi's cas (suora), as explained in M.L. Kesari's case (suora) and undertaken a emolovees who had worked for more than ten (1O) years out the inte ention of the Courts and Tribunals as on 1O.4.2OO6 and subiect them to a orocess verification as to whether thev are workino aoainst vac nt oosts and pes=sess_-tCquis.ite q ua l if icat rcgu-ladzelhcircsylecs! ofo re DA rtno the list .lfd ail t me exerca

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2019 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the r:ases of petitioners for regularization of services on one- time basis are declared as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; the respondents are directed to reoularize on one-time basas pgtitioners' services rr.rf ha tn i m n1:+l-l af Tl.a <at chrit ha done within two (2) weeks from the date of receiot of coDv of the order." ani nrr+ ih6r, sh t ,rf +]16i r. m n i rr ili:r frarrr w t I

23. This e Court oDin es that in the ores ent case f, 29 SN, J wp 29308_2021 accordance to law.

24. and extracted above.

25. Takinq into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & 5. II / 30 SN, J wp_29308_202 I c) The observations of the Apex court in the various judgmentEs (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: i)(:to2o) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) Scc Page 396 (iii) 2a2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(Sc) 1209 (v) eorT) 1 scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(e) scc 247 (vii,) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC tz97 (.x) (2o1s) I scc 26s (x) (2014) 7 scc 223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2O24 (xiilr AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv; zOlL ( 1) ALD , Page 234 (xv) 2018(2)ALD page 282 (xvi) 2O2O(4)ALD page 379 d) The Division Bench order of this court dated 10.06.201.3 passed in w.A.Nos.tgz of 2o1o and gs4 of 2012 while uploading the Judgment dated og.o9.2o1o passed in w.P.No.243z7 ot 2oot and c.c.No.4g of 2oog (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this court dated 19.09.2017 passed in w.p.No.2z2L7 of 2o17 (referred to and extrar:ted above), Z 3l SN. J wp-29308_2021 f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.1 ot 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23057 of 2OL9 (referred to and extracted above). g) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order. The Writ Petition is a!lowed. the oetitioner is ut-forth h reoularization of oetitioner's services, and also the claim of the Detitioner to treat the temoorarv services of the 6 etif innar aft t a !tc+ rrr..rla rtr\c+ rtf Swee rter rarrrrlrr. arra for all Durooses bv qrantinq last orade oav with oeriodical increments revised from tame to time from the date of aDDointment of the Detiti ner and all consequential benefits, dulv enclosino al! the relevant documents in suooort of oetitioner's case as out-forth in the oresent writ oetition, within a oeriod of on e (O1) week from the date of receipt of copv of the order and the respondents shall examine and consider th e same tn accordance to conformi u n ustice orovidino an oooortunitv t DE rsona lhe arino to the 32 \ SN. J \vp-29108_202t tio n r r a b eS em Court i Um vi' 6 4 o ent D ssed i W.P. o.24377ot O1O r 2 1 1 P ccP e1 oo7 d ted 2 o confir inW o.7 ol 2

10. 201 as De Division Ben h Judo ment of this urt d ted 19.09. i:017 Dassedin W.P.N o.272L7 ot20O7 reoortedin 20L8(2)ALD Dao 242 and also th Division B nch Jud qment of thi rt dated 2L.O4.2020 Dasse I.A.Nos 1 2019 in W.P. No.23O 57 of 20L9 reDorted tn 2020(4tALD oaqe 379 which had attain ed fina litv, w hin Cou f 202IJ inlof r 4 w this order, dulv takino into el w lai sid r o a ow b the Aoex Court inthe various iudq ments (refe rred to and extracted abov ), and tn Da rticular, Dara No.53of the iudqme y com municate the Karnatakav Uma Dev.f decision to the Howev er, there shall be no Detitaoner. ,n s rece iDt ofa coDv order as to costs. -\,' t". To 33 SN. J wp_29308_202 I Miscellaneous petitions, if dny, pending in this writ Petition, shall stand closed /TRUE COPY/ t 'fl;${tHr}PEFRRx / sECnffi oFFICER One fair copy to the HON'BLE YRS' "(IL=.'i;;'u"av"rti p' s Ki nd Pe rusal) JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA , ;:" z*rapraiaparishad, Nalgonda District Rep. by its chief Executive officer' District. S.TheMandalParishadDevelopmentofficer,NarketpallyMandal,Nalgonda 9. One CC to SRI CH' GANESH' Advocate [OPUCI ,olNif,""i*Sr9;"TI#SIg'iL,mi,3^,XYSh,DE'EL.PMENT'Hish Hish court ror the State or ; t '' +H3r.33irt3, fr:J,h5$ANCE "o**'*n'

12.OneCCtoSRlK'PRADEEPREDDY'S'C'forGPP/MPPIZPP[OPUCI

13. Two CD CoPies DAN/MP d HIGH COURT DATED:18 ,t0712025 ORDER WP.No.293tl8 ot 2021 o') Y * THE S ? 1 [[8 2026 * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS