The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : SRI N.CHANDRA SEKHAR, (3: FOR TSRTC) Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.G.R.MERCY VIJAYA The Court made the following: JUDGMENT IN TTIE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF AT HYDERABAI) THE TION' BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICD SRI A.PARESH KI]MAR SINGH THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE G. .MOHIIJDDIN A.I\ID WRIT APPEAL No. lOOl of2O25 Dated,:16.12.2O2 5 Between: The TSRTC, (nowTGSRTC) Rep., by its Vice Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and two others. J. Kishan and 5 others. ...Petitioner ...Respondents JUDGMENT: Sn G. Vidya Sagar, Iearned Senior represents Mr. N. Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the Telangana State Road Counsel Standing Transport Corporation appears for the appellants. Smt. G.R. Mercy Vijaya, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The learned writ Court by the impugned order dated O3.O7.2O25 directed the appellant - Telangana State Road I I --X ''?if?I! z Transport Corporation (for short, 'the Cc,r poration") to reconsider the case of the respondents/writ retitioners as a special case as they have rendered 1,r clonged and unintermpted service for regularization wher :ver they are fit. It also imposed a rider that Lhe responc( nts shall not be entitled to claim any back wages or retros [ ]ctive service benefits. Aggrieved thereby, the appellart Corporation preferred this appeal.

3. Facts as are relevant for consideratio:r of the issue are fumished in a tabular chart. which i re extracted \ hereunder: sI. NO DATE I

01.01.1996 2

26.08. 1999 PARTICI,'I.ARS The petitioners rvere engaged a ; Su,eepers and Clearers by a contractor fc r executing the sweeping and cleaning wor{ at the Zonal Workshop, Karirnnagar of the ' ua Respondent- Corporation (TSRrc). Their ,: rgagement was purely contractual and initiall r for one year, which was later extended fronr ime to time. The petitioners, along with others, filed W.P.No.13308 of i997 r rallenging the action of the Corporation ir r engaging new persons in their place. The Hor ble High Court allowed the Writ Peti on arr I directed the respondents to regularize thei r seruces in the post they were working as conr r rct labour. (

28. rO. 1999 Aggrieved by the said order. t re Corporauon filed Writ A eal No. 1503 of 1{) 19. The Hon'ble 3 High Court dismissed the appeal conftrming the order in W.P. No. 13308/1997. The Corporation preferred SLP (Civil) No.239 of 2OOO before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Apex Court disposed of the SLP directing the respondents to continue the petitioners in servlce, ald observed that the question of their regularization shall be decided in accordance with rules. On I.A. No. I of 2000 in the above SLP, the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order dated 02.03.2OO I directing the Corporation to continue the pelitioners in senice and that their regularization shall be considered in accordance with rules. The Corporation filed a Review Peution (Civil) No.856 of 20O I in SLP (C) No.239 of 2OO0. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the same on l8.o I .2002. The order dated 2na March 200I is recalled The order dated 5h May 2O0O gets revived Pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, ltre petitoners have been permitted to work under different contractors continuously from the year 2OO3 onwards. However, no regulafization orders were issued by the Corporation. The petitioners filed w.P. No.27349 of 2OO3 seeking regularizaLion. The Hon'ble High Court disposed of the Writ Petition on O9.O2.2O11 directing the Corpora on to consider their cases for regularization as per the governinA service condltions. Aggrieved by the above, the Corporation filed Writ Appeal No.215 of 20I I , which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 15.03.2012 confirming the direcUons issued in w.P. No.27349l2OO3. 4

05.05.2000 5

02.03.200 r 6 r 8.o r.2002 2003 onwards 8

09.02.20 r r I

15.03.2012 I i; .-K 4 In compliance with tl-tr' Hon'ble Court, the Con ( No.P3 / 122(21 /2OO9-WM I' I (communicated on 19.O4 1 petitioners' claim for rCq ground that (i) they were t sanctioned posts, (ii) Lltt: MaIi. Attender etc., u,ert Circular No.6/2004-IEI) and (iii) they did not p,r qualification of ITI in required for the only ost, Shram&/Khalost directions of the raLion issued Proc. dat<:d 17 .O4.2O12 0 t 2), rejecting the llariTation on the ot erlgaged against posts of Sweeper, abolished as per latecl I5.03.2OO4. isess the requisite Diesel Mechanic, rvailable Class-IV The petitioners filed Con(r'r-rpt Case No.954 of 2012 alleging non-compl z nce of the High Court's earlier directions. Thc Hon'ble High Court dismissed the O ,n ternpt Case on 3O.O7 .2021, observing t L lt Lhere was no injusuce caused and t l lt the petiuoners continued to be engagecl u ICIer contractors as er the Su reme Court's rli ections The petitioners flletl $IP. No.2O460 of 2022 challenging the sai(l proceedings dated 19.04.2012 and sought a direction to regularize their serrrices lrc :n their initial date of cngagement or any subs r quent date. The Hon'ble High Coru t disposed of W.P. No.2O46O of 2022, directil t the CorporaUon to reconsider the. petitloner:i case as a speciol case and to take steps fbr regula-rization wherever Fit, while clearll oltst:n ing that the petitioners shall not be cr t tled to back wages or retros tive benefits 10

17.o4.2012 I1

30.07.202r 10 2022 13 o3.o7.2025 l4 August 2025 Aggrieved by the order dated O3.O7.2025 passed in W.P. No.20..t O of 2022, the Corporation has prefen-c c the present Writ Appeal before the Hon'ble ll gh Court. 5

4. A perusal of the list of dates shows that in May, 2000 in Special kave Petition (Civil) No.239 of 2OO0 in a matter concerning the same respondents/writ peti oners seeking regularization of their services in ttre posts they were working as contract labour, the Apex Court while disposing of tle said Special lrave PetiUon directed the appellant Corporation to continue the respondents in service and observed that the question of their regularizailon sha-ll be decided in accordance with the Rules.

5. In Review Petition (Civil) No.856 of 2001 in the same Special [,eave Petiilon, the subsequent order dated

02.O3.2O01 was recalled reviving ttre order dated

05.O5.2000 referred to hereinabove. Thereafter, the respondents have continued uriintermptedly till date. However, they have been denied regularizaUon on the ground that they were not engaged as against any sanctioned post and that the posts of Sweeper, Mali, Attender etc., were abolished as per Circular No.6/2004- IED, dated 15.03.2004. Their cases were not considered for regularization as they do not possess the requisite qualifica on of Industrial Training Institute (ITI) in Diesel t J x I 6 Mechanic for only available () ass,IV post, Shrarnik/Khalasi. Tbjs decision dated 19 ( 4.2012 became the subject matter of W.P.No.2O460 of 2(r: 2, r.hereirr the respondents/writ petitioners also sought r :gularizalion of their services from the initial date of en5i gement or any subsequent date. In this factual backgrorr rd, the learned writ Court directed the appellant Corporalir n to reconsider the case of the respondents as a special r I sc ilnd to take appropriate steps for regulafizauon 01 t heir serr.ices wherever they are fit with the rider that tl-r,: ' would not get retrospective benefits or back wages.

6. During the course of proceedings ol tll s plea, learned Senior Counsel for tJle appellant Corporattrr r was asked to seek instructions as to whether the Corport ion is going to formulate any scheme which may address t re grievance of the respondents, who have continued r nder ad hoc engagement for around 25 years. On tlr; observation, Iearned Senior Counsel for the Corporatir -l submits on instructions that though there is no schemr: lormulated for regularization of the respondents, the ( orporation is inclined to entertain their application for rr lularization in \ 7 individual cases depending upon the availability of posts and other uniform eligibiXty conditions. Learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation submits that the Corporation shall not discontinue the engagement of the respondents till they reach the age of superannuation in zrny case.

7. [rarned counsel for the respondents/writ pe[tioners submits that the appea_l may be disposed of without interfering with the order of the learned writ Court by issuing a direction for consideration of the case of the respondents for regula-riza on in the light of the submissions made by t}-e learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation.

8. The background facts noted above present a stark reality of continuous engagement without absorption or regularization of the respondents Lill date. Specious pleas have been taken in the speaking order rejecting the claim of the respondents for regularization which was the subject matter of the impugned writ proceedings. However, the facts of the case present a scenario which raises both legal and humanitarian issues. The recent decisions rendered / x 8 by tire Apex Court on the subject of reg:.a-rization in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevit and Jaggo vs. Union of Indiaz and referre: to also by the learned Single Judge flag issues of deni,r of basic rights and benefits to employees temporari I' er-rgaged and continued over long periods of Ume to : radc obligations both to the employees by State and other ;tatutory bodies or instrumentalities of the State. This b: ng rhe position, we are inclined to go along with the view ( xprcssed by the Iearned writ Court and also the stancl ,l- tire appellant Corporation as reflected hereinabove b r directing the Corporation to take a decision on L re quesUon of regular?-ation of the individual responderr s in accordance with law against the available. sanction r I posts al1d by relaxing the eligibility conditions which a:-, not mandatory in nature, taking into account the circurr s lances in which the Corporation has continued the en I rgement of the respondents for the last 25 years. The [r arned Standing Counsel for the Corporation has expressll' ronveyed that in iury case the respondents would not be di; rngaged till they I (20061 4 SCC I r Le.ws 1sC1-2Oz+- t 2-80, decrded on 20.12.2024 9 attain the age of superannuation. It is expected that the Corporation would act like a model employer in matters concerning such similarly situated employees in the Corporation. The respondents are directed to make their representation within a period of two weeks from today and the appellant Corporation would consider the same and take a decision within a reasonable time.

9. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER 1 2 1 One CC to SRI N.CHANDRA SEKHAR, (SC FOR TSRTC). tOpUCl One CC to SMT.G.R.MERCY VIJAYA, Advocate. [OpUC] Two CD Copies. BSK BS HIGH COURT DATED:1611212025 /' 'u- ,.) I i ., :,. t- \.'.).- JUDGMENT WA.No.1001 o12025 ,,;,_.1\. ':: il{=: \. ,) ., \\ ,'-t. +'\i .t) x ti .\, ,)-{r _\) \,. ; t. \ r-i*- ' -.f.;' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS t,