The High Court · 2025

. Heard sri cH.Ganesh, tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for services-rr appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.l to 3 and sri pradeep Reddy Katta, learned standing counset appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 & S.

2. The petitioner approached the court seekinq prave, as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in not regularizing the temporary appointment provided to the petitioner on compassionate grounds in the year Lgg4 as per G.O. Ms.No. 687, dated 03.10.1977 and G.O. Ms. No. 66L, dated 23.L0.2008 to tiil date by paying starving wages of Rs. L623/ per month from 2 long yeirs ignoring legitimate wages payable to the petitioner as per section 13 and 15 of Minimum wages Act, 1948 and section 4 of Equal Remuneration Act, Lg76 R/W Article L4, 16, ZL, 39(d), 43 and 300 (A) of our constitution as highry illegal, unjust, unfair and vioration of the provisions of E --.> \rr 5 SN, J the said Acts and our constitution and prays to direct the respondents herein to treat the petitioner as a regular one in the rast grade post from the date of appointment by apprying the principre raid by the Honbre Supreme Court in C.A. No. 679g of 2}lg, dated 02.09.2019 in the case of prem singh vs state of U.p 201,9 (t) scc- 516) and with further direction to retease all the consequentiar monetary benefits of the rast grade post w.e.f. 16.L2.1994 to till date from time to time with 100 percent compensation on arrears of pay as per the principle laid by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in C.A.No 34L6-3445 of 2010 dated Lg/02/201g in the case of Union of India Vs Avatar chand (2019 3 ALD sc 32) by awarding heavy cost and pass...,, PERUSED THE RECoRD:. :- 6 SN, J

4. 2011(1) ALD Paoe 234 as confirmed in w.A.No.782 of Y. .-.:j-a:_-.',- 7 SN, J reasonable oeriod.

6. No.4

7. _ "36' There are some of the emproyees who have not been regurarized in s3!e of havinjren"oerea the services for 30- 40 or more yu".. wf,"reas-ttur'n:r" been superannuated. As thev have worked in tl.re ri,ort-.nu.g;a-"I;b-rishment, not a ga inr, u nu, l? rticula r pioi*t, their- r"rri.lr*'ought to have been r.gur".ized undEr-in" -Government instructions and even as Der the deciiion'ir thii court in-state ot Karnataka vers,,s tlruJ"ri-f]jri. This Court in the said decision has laid down *rai-iii.ur" services hive been rendered for more trran ten vears without tne-corlr of the Court's order, as. one_time measure, the services be regularized of such. emptoyeer."in. the' faai [" case, those emproyees who r,lrt *"rr.la for ten years or more should have been regularized. if.wouta not be proper to regulate them for consideration or regurarization as others have been reoularize;;-;;'';;# ,n", their services be treated ur u [orlar one. ioir"-r""., it is made clear that they sha' not be" entitted to .iui.,ing any dues of difference in wages had they been .""iirl;a i" ,"rriJ" -regutarly "f !e 8 SN, J 7 ! ! ! I i i i 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 right from the day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifyingservice for purpose of pension."

8. Thq Aoex Court in the case of Dharwad District PWD Literate Daily Waoe Emplovees Association Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 199O(2) SCC Paqe 395 laid orinciole that the State should not keeo a person in temporarv or adhoc service for lono period and have to treat such persons as reqular one.

9. Para No.53 of the of the iudqment of the Apex Court in the State of Karnataka and others Vs' Umadevi' dated 1O.04.2OO6 reported in (2OO6) 4 SCC 1 is extracted hereunder:- "53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There mav be case$ where irEeoular apoointments* (not illeqa! aopointments) as exolained in S.V. . Naravanapoa 11967 (11 SCR 128L R.N. Naniundaooa [1972 (1) SCC 4g9l and B.N. Naoaraian [1979"'(4] SeC 5O71 and referred to in para 15 above, of dulY oualified oersons in duly sanctioned vacant oosts nniuht have been made and the emolovees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of reoularization of the services of such emplovees mav have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled bv this Court in the 9 sN,r

10. hereunder: 't12. Despite being labelled as,,part_time workers," th9 appe[ants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive p..iJa", ranging from over a decade to neaily two decades. Their engasement was- n9t sioradic in nature, instead, it wl;';"grqent, regutar, ";-A;;;;"ry and akin to ..the ,""pnlibilities typicafiy associated with sanctioned posts. moreover, the respondents aia nbt ingrg. any other personnel for these tasti - ar.irig "itr. appellants tenure, ,na"r""orr-nJ, ifr. indispensabte nature of th;;; work. 13. 10 SN, J 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 ltBT (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 rights and beneflts. It the corresponding

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 SN, J "irregular" often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" appointments. It cateooricallv held that emolovees in irreoular aooointments, who were enoaoed in dulv sanctioned oosts and had served continuouslv for more than ten vears should be considered for re ularization 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 overlooking the acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. Thas selective aDolication distorts the iudqment's soirit and ouroose effectivelv weaoonizino it aqain emnlovees who have rendered indisoensable services over 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. Thas approach aligns with international standards and sets a '\(t t2 SN, J positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country. 2a. 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 reoularised forthwith. However, the appellants shall not be entitled pecuniary benefits "ack wages for the period they have not worked for but woutd be entitled to continuitv of services for the said oeriod and the same counted for their oost- retiral benefits."

11. The Judoment of the Apex court dated 31.01.2o25 reported in 2O25 INSC 144 in ..SHRIPAL AND ANoTHER v. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD". in particular. "the relevant oara Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder: "15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen coritihuouslv rendered their services over several vears- sometimes soannino more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in fu[, the Emo s failure to furnish s ch records- despite directions to do so-allows an adverse \\- I( -/ l3 SN, J lurasprudence. In Derpetual dailv-wage or contractual enqaoements in , aoreement. At this juncture, it wourd 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 rndia in the foilowing paragraphs: "22. The pervasive misuse of temporary emptoyment contracts, Ers exemptified in this .ai", refrects a broader systemic issue that adversery affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious emproyment u..ung"rents, often characterized by rack. of benefits, joolecurity, and fair treatment. such practices'hur" been criticized fo.r exproiting workers and undermininj labour standards. Goveinment institutions, entrusted with uphording the principres of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibirity to ivoid such exproitative emproyment piactices. wlren pubric sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detri*mental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode pubric trust in governmenta I operations. 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face murtifaceted forris or exproitation.-wnire the foundationat purpose of temporary contracts may l4 SN, J have been to address short-term or seasonai needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 scc online sc 3826 evade rong-term obrigations owed to employees. These practices maniiest in several ways: L] Jf identical tasks, ' Arbitrary Termination: Temporary emproyees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of naturar justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardiess of theluarity or duration of their service. . Lack of iar"e,. Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excruded from opportunities for skiil 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 6eing equally significant. ' using outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing rores performed by te_mporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. rhis prlaice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. ' Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamentat benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, i t 15 SN, J 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 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 meaningfur 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 thev were enqaqed in essential, oerennial duties, these workers cannot be releqated to oeroetual uncertaintv. lfrhile concerns of municipal budget and compliance with recruitment rules merit consideration, such concerns do not absolve the Emplover of statutorv oblioations or neoate equitable entiflements, Indeed, bureaucratic limitations cannot trumo the leqitimate i t6 SN, J 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, 1947, 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 Em ployer 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. IIr. considering the length of service, the Appellant workmen shall be entifled to 50% of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall elear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. L, rl9 --,tr' t7 SN, J statutorv and eouitable norms.

19. In view of the above, the appeat(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 judoment reported in (2O17r 1 "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, white 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 furt bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held entitred to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regurar employeel. rne exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:- "(1) A daily wageL ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after I , 18 SN, J undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to atl other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. (2) But if dailv wagers. ad hoc or contractual appointees are not appointed against regular sanctioned oosts and their seruices are availed continuously. with notional breaks. by the State Government or its instrumentalities for a sufficient long period i.e. for 7O years, such daily wagers ad hoc or contractual apoointees shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale without any allowances on the assumption that work of oerennial nature is available and having worked for such lonq period of time. an equitable right is created in such category of persons. Their claim for regularization, if any. may have to be considered separately in terms of legally Permissible scheme. (3) In the event, a claim is made for minimum pay scale after more than three years and two months of completion of 70 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. The judoment of the Aoex Court reported in 2O1O(9) SCC 247 between: State of Karnataka and others v M.L.Kesari and others, in oarticular,-paras 4 to 9 reads as under:

4. The decision in State of Karnataka v. lJmadevi was rendered on 10.4.2006 (reported in 2006 (4) SCC 7)..1n that case a Constitution Bench of this Court held that appointments made without following the due process or the rules relating to appointment did not confer any right on the appointees and courts cannot direct their absorption, regularization or re- engagement 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, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment had been done in a regular mannert in terms of the -,/ l9 SN, J constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement 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 furthir . 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 74 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : to in Dara 75 abo of dulv oua Cou in the cases is iudo t. verefe text. in the lioht eUn in d, Dosts but not under co "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 aie fulfilted : (i) The employee concerned shoutd have worked for 10 years or more in duly sanctioned post without the benefit or protection of 20 SN, J the interim order of any court or tribunal. In other words, the Sfafe Government or its instrumentality should have employed the employee and continued him in setyice 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 witt 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. (rendered on 7O.4.2O06\,' 6. The term 'one-time measltre' 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, daity-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for more than ten years without the intervention of courts and tribunals and subiect them to a process verification as to whether they are working against vacant posts and possess fhe requisite qualification for the post and if so, regularize their services. 7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in llmadevi, cases of severat daily-wage/ad'hoc/casual employees were-siitt pending before Courts. Consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand, some Governmbnt departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-time exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cases were pending in coutts or due to sheer oversight. In such circumstances, the employees who were entitted to be considered in terms of Para ^-/ 2t SN, J 53 of the decision in umadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise was completed without considering their caseq or because the six month period mentioned in para 53 of umadevi has expired. The one-time exercise shourd consider att daily- wage/adhoc/those employees who had put in 10 years of continuous service as on 10.4.2006 without availing the protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. If any employer had held the one-time exercise in terms of para 53 of umadevi, but did not consider the cases of some employees who were entitled to the benefit of para 53 of lJmadevi, the emptoyer concerned should consider their cases also, as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise wilt be concluded only when all the employees who are entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered. measure.

9.- These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in tJmadevi. The Appeilant (Zila panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of ;7 ", 22 SN, J 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 month, a general one- time regularization exercise, to find out whether there are any daily wage/casual/ad-hoc,emptoyees serving the Zila Panchayat and if so whether such employees (including the respondents) fulfill the requirements mentioned in para 53 of Umadevi. If they fulfill them, their 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 fo 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.

14. In the iudEment of the Apex, Court in Nihal Singh 65, the Supreme Court considered the case of absorption of Special Police Officers appointed by the State, whose wages were paid by Banks at whose disposal their services were made available. It held that the mere fact that wages were paid by the Bank dad not render the appellants 'employees' of those Banks since the appointment was made by the State and disciplinary >." 23 SN, J control vested with the state. rt herd that the creation of a 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. @ 24 SN, J bv the State. It was held that the iudqment in Umadevi cannot become a ticence for exotoitation bv the State and its instrumentalities and neither the Government of Puniab nor those public sector Banks can continue such a practice inconsistent with their obliqation to function in accordance with the Constitution.

15. The judqment of the Aoex'Court reported in 2O15 SCC Online SC 1797 between B.Srinivasulu and others v Nellore Municioal Corporation Rep.bv its Commissioner, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh and others, in particular Daras 7 and 8 reads as under: (7) issuance of the said G.O. but even subsequent to the issue of G.O. tilt 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 without regularising the service of the appellants and continued to extract work from the appellants. In the circumstance, refusing the benefit of the above 8. 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 modifyingi the order under appeal .by directing that the appellants' services be regularised with dffect from the date of their completing their five year continuous service as was laid down by this Court in District Cotlector/Chairperson & Others vs. M.L. Singh & Ors. 2009 (8) SCC 480, 25 SN, J

16. rn Amarkant Rai v state of Bihar reoorted (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 instrumentarities for more than ten vears". rn that case. emolovee was workino for 29 vears. This decision approves earlier view expressed in M.L.Kesari extracted above.

17. rn state of Jarkhand v Kamar prasad reported in (2o14) 7 scc 223, similar view was taken bv the Supreme Court and it was held as follows : ,r47 In view of cateaorical of fact on the interfered with by this Court.,, 26 SN, J

18. The Judgment of this court dated 06.!2.20.22 passed in w.P.N o.27602 of 2oL9 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 2o23 dated to.1o.zo23 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated

09.O8.2024 in SLP No.32847 of 2024.

19. "100. The High courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India, not onry have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, 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.,, .{ 27 SN, J 2(). 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.L2.1989, 11.09.L992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7.2009 for regularization 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 25-T of the ID Act. The learned Single Judge while relying on the decisions of the Apex Court, rightly held that the respondents are entitled to regularization as directed in the impugned orders, as the learned single Judge considered all the aspects of the matter in detail, in the propei perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals." 2L. observed as under:- "16. It is trite that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding throughout the country under Article L4t of the Constitution of India. It is noteworthy that by the time the judgment in tJma 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 28 SN, J go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time absorption/regularization 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 L994 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 of the States where State enactments banning regularization/absorption exist. Therefore, Act 2 of 1994 1OO and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated ), A I OOZ Aa nrri iudgment in Manjula Eashrni's case (supra), does not lower the trajectory of the directions issued by the Supreme Couft in Para 53 of its judgment in Uma Deyi's case (supra). It is, therefore, not permissible for the resoondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, to deny regularization to the petitioners, who have, admittedly, satisfied the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the judoment in Uma Devi's case (supra). rerirllh anrf rlarrrn rrrhilfla

18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.6.2OL7, in OA No.1442 of 2OL4, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside and the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the resoondents to consider reoularisation of the services of the petitioners against the existihg vacancies of Work Inspectors and appoint them subject to their satisfying the criteria laid down in Para No.53 of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). This process must be completed within two months from the date of receipt pf a copv of this order."

22. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judoment dated 21.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l of 2O2O in 1 of 2O19 and W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 reoorted in 2O2O(4)ALD paqe 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 =< I -\- tEii::-:i;, , 29 SN, J e lst resDonde 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 has not followed the decision in Uma Devi's case (supra), as explained in M.L, Kesari's case (suora) and undertaken a one-time exercise of oreparino the list of dailv waoe emplovees who had worked for more than ten (1O) vears without the intervention of the Courts and Tribunals as on 1O.4.2OO6 and subiect them to a process verification as to whether thev are working aoaanst vacant posts and oossess requisite oualifications for the oosts, and if so, regularize their services.

50. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 20.8.2Ot9 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 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India; lhe respondents are directed to reoularize on one-time basis petitioners' services from the date each of the oetitioners m hla+a fra m +ha B r r+ +hav Gli I rr.rf h6 ali firl ela ^rrri i rrl itialti ^ arrtii aA ,ra itv rltarrrafrr.v Fali af Tho crid ovarlni Ch:ll ha done within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of coov of the order." I O rrarrc af car.rri .!f tha lr . an r{: h,r

23. Th ts ra.+ ar6inae +lir+ e .ir.aca.i+ r.t raa llr a resDon ents failed to discharoe th ir dutv in ex mininq the reouest of the oetitioner for reoularization of Detitioner's servaces, who is workinq as full tim sweeDer and further to consid r his reouest treat the te DOrarv servace of the petitaoner an the last qrade post of futt time llo urD(,Se bv oranti q last orade pav with oeriodical increment revised from tame to r as reou ar one for ;/ 30 SN, J time from the date of aooointment of the petitioner, in accordance to law.

24. This Court ooines that petitioner is entitled for consideration of petitioner's case for ofant of the relief as praved for in the oresent Writ Petition in view of the observations of the Aoex Court in various iudgments (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 petitioner and learned standing counsel 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: ixzozo) 1 scc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) Scc Page 396 (iii) 2o2s rNsc 144 (iv) 2024 LawSuit(SC) t2O9 { 3l SN, J (v) (2017) l scc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9)S,CC247 (vii) (2O13) 14SCC 6s (viii) 2O15 SCC Online SC L797 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (20L4)7 S,cc223 (xi) SLP No.32847 ot 2024 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2o06) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 2O11 (1) ALD, Page234 (xv) 2018(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.782 ol 2O1O and 854 of 2O12 while uploading the Judgment dated 08.09.2010 passed in W.P.No.24377 ot 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 (referred to and extracted above), e) The Division Bench order of this Court dated A9.O9.2O17 passed in W.P.No.272L7 ot 2O17 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this Court dated 2L.O4.2O2O passed in I.A.Nos.l ol 2O2O in 1 of 2019 and W.P.No.23O57 ot 2OA9 (referred to and extracted above). S) In the light of discussion and conclusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24 of the present order. 32 SN, J The Writ Petition is allowed, the oetitioner is directed to out-forth the claim of the oetitioner for reoularization of petitioner's services, and also the claim of the oetitioner to treat the temoorarv services of the oetitioner in the last orade oost of Sweeoer as reqular one for all purooses by orantinq last orade oav with periodical increments revised from time to time from the date of appointment of the petitioner and all consequqntial benefits, dulv enclosino all the relevant documents in suooort of petitioner's case as out-forth in the present writ oetition, within a period of one (O1) week from the date of receipt of copv of the order and the respondents shall examine and consider the same in accordance to law, in conformiW with princioles of natural iustice by providino an opportunitv of oersonal hearing to the petitioner- in terms of orders qassed by the Suoreme Court in Uma Devi's case reported in 2OO6(41 SCC Paqe 1, the judoment passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 dated O8.O9.2O1O reported in 2011 (1) ALD, Paoe 234 and as confirmed in W.A.No.782 of 2O1O dated 10.O6.2O13, and also as oer Division Bench Judoment of this Court dated \ 55 SN, J 2O18(2)ALD oaoe 282 and also the Division Bench Judqment of this Court dated 21.O4.2O2O oassed in consideration the observations and the law laid down bv the Aoex Court in the various iudgments (referred to and extracted above), and in particular, oara No.53 of the Karnataka v. Uma Devf and dulv communicate the order as to costs, Miscellaneous petitions, if ofly, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. SD/.B. REKHA RANI AS^SISTANT REGISTRAR G. SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY/ one Fair copy to the Hon',ble MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA (For Her LadYshiPs Kind Perusal) To,

1. 11 LR CoPies. \ 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia lvlinistry of Law, Justice and company Affairs, New Delhi.

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

4. The Principal Secretary, Panchayathraj Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. I

5. The Principal Secretary, Finance & Planning Department, Govt. of Telangana, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

6. The District Collector (Panchayats) and Chairman of Selection Committee, Siddipet, Siddipet District, TS.

7. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Prala Parishad, Siddipet District. 8. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Jagadevpur Mandal, Siddipet District.

9. One CC to SRI CH GANESH, Advocate [OPUC] 10.Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-Il, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad .tOUTl 1 1. One CC to SRI PRADEEP REDDY KATTA, SC FOR ZPP MPP IOPUC] 12.Two CD Copies PMK BSK HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:1610712025 t \ ORDER WP.No.29317 of 2021 .\ lii SI4 \)\' ( 13 0E[ ilm P * S|JAT * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,U@ B 6rfo,