The High Court · 2025

Heard Sri Ch. Ganesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Rai Rural Development, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 3t learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, appearing on behalf of the respondent No,2 and Sri. Katta pradeep Reddy, learned standing counsel for. TG zPP MPP GPPS, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5.

2. The petitioner aDDroached the Court seeking Prayer as under: "...to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in not treating the services of petitioner as regular one in last grade post, even after exhaust of life energies and youth in 32 years long service, as unjust, unfair, arbitrary and violation of Article L4, L6,2L,39 (d), 43 and 300 (A) of our Constitution in denying legitimate living wages of last grade pay and prays to direct the lst Respondents herein to treat the services of the petitioner as 4 SN, J wp_3035 I _202 I reguiar one from the date of initiar appointment i.e. from 01-08-1989 by apprying the decision and principre raid by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble court reported in 2020 (4) ALD 379 TS (DB) and by apprying the decision and principle laid by the Honbre Supreme court in para,s 36 and 37 in the Judgement in c.A. No. 67gg/2otg and Batch Cases dated 02-09-2019 (2019 (10) SCC 516) in C.A. No. L254 of 2018 to reckon contingent services of petitioner for computation of quarifying service to grant of pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits with all consequential monetary benefits incruding seniority with arrears of pay in last grade post along with periodical increments, as revised from the date of appointment of the petitioner with l00percent compensation as per principle laid by Apex court in the case of Union of India vs. Avtar chand in c.A. No. 3416 -3445 of 2010 and Batch cases dated Lg-}2-zolg (ALD 3 of 2019 SC 32) by applying principtes laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court under Article L4L of our constitution and pass...". 3 ,I / 5 SN, J wp_3035 I _202 I PERUSED THE RECORD:. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 4 petitioner submits that the subject is5ue in the oresent O8.O9.2O1O oassed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 reported in 2O1O, dated 10.O6.2013 and also order, dated 19.O9.2O17 passed in W.P.No.27217 of 2017 reoorted in 2O18 (2) ALD Paoe 282 and also the order, dated 21.O4.2O2O oassed in W.P.No.23O57 of 2O19 reoorted in 2O2O(4) AlrD Paoe 379.

5. Learned standing counsel apoearinq on behalf of the respondent No,4 submits that the qrievance of the petitioner as out-forth in the present Writ Petition had not been addressed to the resoondents herein as on date and petitioner in the oresent Wit petition cannot be granted o , t, !, 6 SN, J wp_30_15 l_2021 reasonable ],eriod. 6 No.4

7. 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- 4O o, 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 r 7 SN, J wp_3035 I_2021 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 rig.ht from the day they entered the work-charged establishment shall be counted as qualifying service for purpose of pension."

8. The Apex Court in the case of Dharwad District PWD Literate Dailv Wage Emolovees Association Vs. State of Karnataka reoorted in 199O(2) SCC Paoe 396 laid principle that the State should not keeo a oerson in temoorarv or adhoc service for lono period and have to treat such oersons as reqular one.

9. Para No.53 of the of the judqment of the Aoex Court in the State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi, dated 1O.04.2OO6 reported in (2 06) 4 SCC 1 is extracted hereunder:- "53. One asoect needs to be clarified. There mav be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal aooointments) as exolained in S.V. NaravanaDDa I'1967 (1) SCR 128'1, R.N. Naniundappa 11972 (1) SCC 4O9'l end B.N. Naqaraian [1979 (4) SCC 5O7l and referrid to in oara 15 above, of duly qualified oersons in dulv sanctioned vacant posts mioht have been made and the employees have continued to I 8 SN, J wp_30351_2021 work for ten vears or more but withou intervention of orders of the courts or of trib na ls. The ouestion of req Iarization of the services f such emDlo vees mav have to be considered on merits in led bv this Court n the the laoht of the orincioles f thi v re at context, the Union of India , the iudq ment. In n s oula rize asaon -time should take eos to measure, the s rvices of uch irrequ larlv aooo nted. who have worked for ten vears or more in dulv courts or of tribunal s and should further ensure that requla ts that re uire to be fil ed uo, vaca nt sanctioned in cas s where tem rarv emDlo ees or dailv waqers cess must b set tn are be no now emDloved. The o motion within six mo ths from this date. recruitments are unde ken to fill m r b

10. The iudoment of the Aoex Court dated 2O.12.2024, d in 2024 LawSuit(SC) 12O9 in Jaooo Anita and others v. Union of India and others, and the re evant oa raq raoh Nos .L2. L3, 24, 26,27 and 28 are extracted here nder: "12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workersr" the appellants performed these essentiat tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature, instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personne! for these tasks during the 9 SN, J wp_30351 2021 appellants tenure, underscoring indispensable nature of their work.

13. these were not regular oosts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed bv the appellants was perennial and fundamental 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 Corporatign [97 F.3d ILBT (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 entifled 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 employmenL status and the corresponding rights and benefits. It r 10 SN, J rvp_3035 l-2021 While the judg ment in Uma Devi (supra) 26. sought to curtail the Practice of backdoor entries and ensure aPPointmen ts adhered to' coristitutional principles, it is regretta ble that its PrinciPles are or misaPPlied to denY often misinterPreted leg itimate claims of long serving employees. This judg ment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" appointments. "irregular" the laudable intent of time measure. However, the judgment is being subverted when institutions indiscriminatelY reject the rely on its dicta to claims of emPloyees, even in cases where their appoi ntments are not illegal, but merelY lack adheren ce to procedural forma lities. Government departments often cite the judg ment in Uma Devi vested right to (supra) to argue that no reg ularization exists for tem porary emPloYees, explicit overlooking acknowledg ment of cases where regularization is appropriate. judgment's 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 ,a '{q. SN, J wp 30351_2021 morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overail betterment of labour practices in 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 .10.2018 are quashed; ii. The appellants shall be taken back on dutv forthwith nd their services regularised forthwith. However, the aooellants sh ll not be entitled pecuniary benefits/back wages for the period they have not worked for but would be entitled to continuity of services for the said period and the same r oost- counted for retiral benefits."

11. The Judoment of the Aoex Court dated 31..O1.2O25 reported in 2O25 INSC 144 in "SHRIpAL AND ANOTHER v. NAGAR NrGAM GIIAZTABAD" in oarticutar the relevant para Nos.15 to 19 are extracted hereunder: 12 SN, J wp_30351_2021 furnish such ..15. It is manifest that the Appellant workmen continuouslv renclered their services over several vears. sometimes spanninq more than a decade' Even if certain muster rolls were,ngt orocluced in full, rds- the mDlover's failure despite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-established labour iurispructence. Inclian labour taw stronqly disfavors peroetual ctailv-waqe or contraCtual enqaoements in circu stances where th work is Dermane nature. Morallv and legallv, workers who fulfil onqoino municipal reouirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily 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, ds exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards- Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public t / ( I ! I I I l3 SN, J wp_3035 l_2021 sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.

25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: . Misuse of "TemDorarv" Labels: Emolovees enqaqed for work that is essential, recurrino, and inteoral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as "temoorary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of requla.r emplovees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dionity, securitv, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. . 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. t4 SN, J wp_3035 l_2021 . using outsourcing as a shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporaryemployees,effectivelyreplacingoneset of exploited workers with another. This practice 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 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, f,r unforeseen circumstances. "

16. The High Court did acknowledge the Employer's inability to justify these abrupt terminations. Consequently, it ordered re-engagement on daily waQes 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. t7. 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, Lg47, and that thev were enoaoed in t n e I J I5 SN, J wp_3035 l_2021 de facto regular roles for an extended period. extent thev confine the Aopellant Workmen to future following directions: 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. consequential benefits, such as senioritv and eliqibilitv for oromotions, if anv. :{ 16 SN, J 1\p_3035 l_2021 III. Considering the length of service, the Appellant Workmen shall be entitled to 50o/o of the back wages from the date of their discontinuation until their actual reinstatement. The Respondent Employer shall clear the aforesaid dues within three months from the date of their reinstatement. statutory and equitable norms.

19. In view of the above, the appeal(.s) filed by the workmen are allowed, whereas the appeal(s) filed by the Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad are dismissed." L2. The Apex court in a iudoment reported in (2017) 1 (1)(2)(3), of the said judoment observed as under: -: t7 SN, J wp_30351 2021 "54 "The Full Bench of the High Court, while adjudicating upon the above controversy had concluded, that temporary employees were not entitled to the minimum of the regular pay- scale, merely for the reason, that the activities carried on by daily-wagers and regular employees were similar. The full bench however, made two exceptions. Temporary employees, who fell in either of the two exceptions, were held entitled to wages at the minimum of the pay-scale drawn by regular employees. The exceptions recorded by the full bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment are extracted hereunder:- "(1) A daily wager, ad hoc or contractual appointee against the regular sanctioned posts, if appointed after undergoing a selection process based upon fairness and equality of opportunity to all other eligible candidates, shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale from the date of engagement. C2) But if daily waaers. ad hoc or contractual appointees are not appointed against regular sanctioned posts and their services are availed continuously, with notional breaks. by the State Government or its instrumentalities fgr a sufficient long period i.e. for 7O years, such daily waaers, ad hoc or contractual appointees shall be entitled to minimum of the regular pay scale without any allowances on the assumption that work of perennial nature is available and having worked for such long period of time. an equitable right is created in such category of persons. Th'eir 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 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. The judoment of the Apex Court reported in 201O(9) SCC 247 between: State of Karnataka and others v t8 SN. J wp_1035 I _202 I M.L.Kesari and others, in particular' paras 4 to 9 reads as under: 4 this Court hetd that appointments made Constitution Bench of due process or the rules relating to without following the confer any right on the appointees and appointment did not ' their absorption, regularization or re' courts cannot direct engaqement nor make their service permanent, and the High Ciuri' in exercise of iurisdiction under Art,icle 226 of the Constitution should not ordinarily issue directions for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance unless the recruitment nia been done in a regular manner, ir; terms of the constitutional scheme; and that the courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic urrungirent of its affairs by the Sfafe or its instrumentalities, nor tind 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 uniett he had been appointed in terms of the relevant rules or in adherence of Artictes 14 and 76 of the Constitution. This Court however made one exception to the above position and the same is extracted below : "53. One aspect needs to be clarified' There may be ,at"s whei" irreaul", appoirt^ents (not illeo'l India. the State vernments a / / r9 SN. J wp_3035 l_202 I appointed. who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned oosts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary emplovees or dailv wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. .... "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. 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. (iii) Umadevi casts a duty upon the concerned emoloyees who had served for more than ten years without the benefit or protection of any interim orders of courts or tribunals. as a one-time measure. Umadevi. motion within six months from the date of its decision (rendered on 7O.4.2OOG).

6. The term 'one-time measurel has to be understood in its proper perspective. This would normally mean that after the decision in Umadevi, each department or each instrumentality should undertake a one-time exercise and prepare a list of all 20 SN. J wp_3035 l_2021 casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees who have been working for mctre than ten Years without the intervention of courts 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 service-s. 7. At the end of six months from the date of decision in umadevi, cases of several daily-wage/ad-hoc/casual employees were stitt pending before courts. consequently, several departments and instrumentalities did not commence the one- time regularization process. On the other hand, some Government departments or instrumentalities undertook the one-tirne exercise excluding several employees from consideration either on the ground that their cascls were pending in courts or due to sheer oversight. In suCh circ'umstances, the employsss who were entitled to be considered in terms of Para 53 of the decision in lJmadevi, will not lose their right to be considered for regularization, merely because the one-time exercise 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 irt 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 entitted to the benefit of para 53 of umadevi, the employer concerned should consider their cases alsq as a continuation of the one-time exercise. The one time exercise vrill be concluded only when atl the emploYees who are entitled ta be considered in terms of Para 53 of Umadevi, are so considered. hoc/ t ,, ,i :: ,,:.,:. . iii!i,' -.iiffi' ,a, 2t SN, J wp_3035 l_2021 or statutory provisions relating to recruitment and appointment. The true effect of the direction is that all oersons who have worked for more than ten years as on 7O,4.2OOG fthe date of decision in Umadevi) without the protection of any interim order of any court or tribunal. in vacant posts possessing the requisite qualification. are entitled to be considered for regularization. The fact that the employer has not undertaken such exercise of regularization within six months of the decision in Umadevi or that such exercise was undertaken only in regard to a limited few. will not disentitle such employees, the right to be considered for regularization in terms of the above directions in Umadevi as a one-time measure.

9. These appeals have been pending for more than four years after the decision in Umadevi. The Appellant (Zila Panchayat, Gadag) has not considered the cases of respondents of regularization within six months of the decision in umadevi or 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 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 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 casesl 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. r L4. 22 SN, J wp_1035 l_2021 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 avaitable. 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 vested with the State. It held that the creation of a cadre or sanctioning of posts for a cadrd 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 contractual relationship, its action is arbitrary. It also refused to I /l 23 SN, J wp_3015 l_202 I absorbed into the services of the State on permanent bv the State. It was held that the judgment in Umadevi cannot become a licence for exploitation by the State and Puniab nor those oublic sector Banks can continue such a accordance with the Constitution.

15. SCC Online SC 1797 between B.Srinivasulu and others v oaras 7 and 8 reads as under: 24 303 5 J SN, 202 (7) We find it difficult to accept the reasoning adopted bv the High Court. The right of the appellants to seek regularization flows from the G.O. No.212 dated 22.4.1994. The appellant have been in service of the first respondent not onlv prior to the issudnce of the said G.O. b -t9-!h9-tssue-Pf 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 circumstancest refusing the benefit of the above 8. mentic>ned G.O. on the ground that the appellants approached the Tribunal belatedly, in our opinion, is not iustified, In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed modifying the order under appeal by directing that the appellants' service:; 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 4BO,

16. SCC 265, the Suoreme Court held that 'The objective behind the exception carved out in this case was to permit regutarization of such appointment, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure appointments, which are irregular but not illegal, and to ensure security of M,L.Kesari extracted above. 25 SN, J wp_3035 l_202 I t7- rn state of Jarkhand v Kamar prasad reoorted in (2014) 7 SCC 223, similar view was taken bv the Supreme Court and it was hetd as follows :. ,r47 fn view of cateoorical of fact on the (2O06) 4 SCC I : 2OO6 SCC (L&S) 73) at pera SB squarety applies to the oresent cases. The Division Bench of the High Court has rightly hetd that the respondent employees are entitled for the relief the same cannot be interfered with by this Court."

18. The Judgment of this Court dated 06.12.2022 passed in W.P.No.27602 of 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 of ZOZ3 dated 10.10.2023 and also confirmed by the order of Apex Court dated

09.O8.2O 24 in SLP No.3 2g47 ot 2024.

19. The judoment of the Aoex court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. state of Maharashtra and others reported in ArR 2o2o suoreme court 3969 and in particurar oara a 26 SN, J wp_3035 l_2021 "100. The High Courts exercising their iurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or ir the nature of mandamus, but are dutv-bou to exercise such power, where the Government or a oublic authoritv has failed to exercise or has Wronqlv exercised discretion conferred uoon it bv a statute, or a rule, or a oolicv decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide, or on irrelevant consideration.

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

20. The Division Bench of this Court in its Judqment dated 1O.O6.2O13 passed in W.A.Nos.782 of 2O1O and 854 of 2O12 while uoholdino the Judgment dated O8.09.2O10 passed in W.P.No.24377 of 2OO7 and C.C.No.48 of 2OO8 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.L2.1.989, 11.09. L992, 06.10.2007 and latest being 4.7 .2OOg for regularization of casual/contract employees, It is also to be seern that Section 25- T of the ID Act prohibits unfair labour practicr: by any employer or workman. As can be seen from the factural 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 respor-rdents are entitled to regularization as directed in the impugned orders, as the learned single Judge considered all the asp-ects of the matter in '.- l_.i;.:: -i-:':.:i:-,ri::i... I ! 27 SN, J wp_3035 I_202 I detail, in the proper perspective, which, in our considered view does not warrant interference in these appeals."

21. daterl 1q-Og-)O17 naqqed in W.P. No,2727.7 of 2OL7 reoorted in 2O18(2)ALD paoe 282 at oara 16 and oara 18 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 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, were in existence. The Supreme Court, while denouncing the practice of regularization and absorption of f persons, who entered service through back doors by giving a go-bye to the due procedure prescribed for appointments to public posts, consciously ordered for one-time 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 22.4.1994, do not whittle down the width and the iudgment in Manj.rla Eashini's case (supra), does not lower the trajectory of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Para 53 of its judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra). It is, therefore, not permissible for the respondents to take shelter under Act 2 of 1994 and G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994, to deny regularization to the oetitioners. who have, admittedlv, satisfied the Devf's case (supra). 18. For the aforementioned reasons, order, dated 27.O.2OL7, in OA No.1442 of 2014, on the file of the Tribunal is set aside 28 SN, J rvp i0351 2021 and the writ oetition is allowed with the direction to the this order."

22. 5 7 4 "45. There is no dispute that petitioners have been working on daily wage since 1990 and have put in almost (30) years of service by now. They have been given minimum time-scale from the year 2000. They have been continuously working without any Court orders in their favour from 1990 till date. 48- It is n6t knar rn urhv he 1st resDondent has n.!t

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 14, !6 and 21 of the Constitution of India; thC / 29 SN, J rvp_3035 I _202 I 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 discharqe their dutv in examinino the request of the petitioner for reqularization of petitioner's services, who is workinq as full time contingent sweeper and further to consider his request to treat the temporary service of the petitioner in the last g!'ade post of full time sweeoer as reoular one for all ourooses bv qrantinq last qrade oav with periodical increment revised from time to time from ,the date of appointment of the petitioner, in accordance to law. 24 This Court ooines that netitioner is entitled for consideration of oetitioner's case for qrant of the relief as prayed for in the oresent Writ Petition in view of the observations of the Apex Court in various judgments lraGcrratl trr anrl avfracfarf harra\ rriarer af Division Bench of this Court in the Judoments referred to and extracted above. I 30 3035 I SN, _202

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 & s. c) The observations of the Apex court in the various judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below: i)(2o2o) 1 SCc (L&s) (ii) 1990(2) SCc Page 396 (iii) 2O2s rNSC 144 (iv) 2024 Law Suit(SC) 1209 (v) (2oL7) 1 SCc 148 (vi) 2o1o(9) scc 247 (vii) (2013) 14scc 6s (viii) 2015 SCC Online SC tZ97 (ix) (2o1s) 8 scc 26s (x) (2ot4) 7 scc 22s (xi) SLP No.32847 of 2O24 (xii) AIR 2O2O Supreme Court 3969 (xiii) (2006) 4 scc 1 (xiv) 20tt (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.7g2 ol 2010 and gs4 of 2012 white uptoading the Judgment dated og.o9.2o1o L;,;.-,;8dil*r;,.- tiig.*1e&Iifi$BJ*€i:Aiii;:.,*_:! -. - jrr: .. I / 3l SN, J wp_i035 l_202 I passed in w.P.No.24377 of 2oo7 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 2017 (referred to and extracted above), f) The Division Bench order of this court dated 2L.o4.2o2o passed in r.A.Nos.1 of zozo in 1 of 2019 and w.P.No.23o57 of 2o19 (referred to and extracted above). g) rn the light of discussion and conctusion as arrived at as above from para Nos.4 to 24of the present order. \\ f 32 SN, J wp_3035 l_202 I I reported in 2o2o(4)ALD oaoe 379 which had attained ) ) / 33 SN, J wp 30351_2021 order as to costs. Miscellanedus petitions, if dfly, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. ,l //TRUE COPY/ One fair coPY to THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTIC (For Her LordshiP's Kind I A. SRINIVASA REDDY ANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER ALLI NANDA To,

1. 11 L.R. CoPies. 2.TheUnderSecretary,Unionoflndia,MinistryofLaw,Justiceand 3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Association Library, High court CompanY Affairs, New Delhi'

14.Two CD CoPies BM O GJP lD CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:2410712025 ORDER WP.No.30351 of 2A21 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS